^ 


*"    m: 


*•     > 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^' 


Shelf. 


Division    \J^  )  ^/  \^    I 
Section   ,  /j|  O  .1  .^O 
Number  /^xKP 


>  -♦         -^  JT        A 


-^  -V         Jt         > 


>-•*>( 


.-*'        .A"        •*» 


,.W-         Jlr 


m 


^       J>f 


>-         JH'         Jit 


^y^: 


>-  .-«•  ,if!:'         Jc 


-^         -^         -^t  .^        --»<         >»■         >>- 


iJ?     >'     j*r     >      A- 


AN 


AMERICAN  COMMENTARY 


ON    THE 


NEW   TESTAMENT. 


EDITED  BY 

ALVAH  HOVEY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
AMERICAN   BAPTIST   PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

1420  Chestnut  Street. 


COMMENTARY 


ON   THE 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


BY 

A.  C  KENDRICK,  D.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST   PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

1420   Chestnut  Street. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1889,  by  the 

AMERICAN    BAPTIST  PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  "Washington. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


Three  among  tlie  New  Testament  Epistles  may  be  regarded  as  of  pre-eminent  interest 
and  importance — namclj^  that  to  the  Romans,  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
the  E]nstlo  to  the  Hebrews.  They  differ,  indeed,  widely  in  purpose  and  character.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  an  exposition,  welling  up  from  the  large  soul  and  ripe  experi- 
ence of  the  Apostle  Paul,  of  the  fundamental  character,  and  world-wide  relations  of  the 
gospel.  That  to  the  Corinthians  applies  tlie  principles  of  the  gospel  to  the  correction  of 
grave  abuses  and  errors  which  had  become  rife  in  one  of  the  most  prominent  New  Testa- 
ment Churches.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  addressed  to  a  body  of  believing  Jews — 
whether  a  single  church  or  an  aggregation  of  churches -i^seeks  to  hold  them  back  from  a 
threatened  apostasy  to  Judaism  by  exhibiting  the  transcendent  superiority  of  the  New 
Covenant  to  the  symbolical  and  transitory  system  to  wluch  they  were  returning.  The 
Epistle  is  thus  more  fundamental  in  character  and  scope  than  that  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
yields  in  depth  of  view  and  the  vital  importance  of  its  teachings,  only  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  Indeed,  selecting  from  the  world's  entire  literature  two  among  its  most  remark- 
able productions,  we  should  readily  designate,  I  think,  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
the  Hebrews.  To  the  former  must  be  accorded  the  superiority  in  breadth,  compi'ehen- 
siveness,  and  power ;  it  glows  throughout  with  the  fiery  energy  of  the  great  Christian 
Demosthenes.  The  latter,  apparently  narrower  in  scope,  makes  up  in  depth  what  it  lacks 
in  breadth  ;  in  calm  majesty  what  it  lacks  in  vehemence  ;  and"  pursues  its  even  and  tran- 
quil course  with  an  earnestness  and  intensity  of  purpose  which  are  in  striking  contrast  with 
the  placid  smoothness  of  the  style.  *^' 

But  apart  from  style  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  presents  some  aspects  of  striking 
peculiarity.  The  authorship,  date,  purpose,  and  destination  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
lie  in  the  clearest  sunlight ;  that  to  the  Hebrews  is  in  all  these  points  enveloped  in  an 
almost  impenetrable  obscurity.  It  presents  the  singular  problem  of  a  composition  written 
in  the  very  blaze  of  the  early  Christian  period,  on  a  practical  topic  of  momentous  interest, 
by  a  man  certainly  of  virtual  apostolic  dignity,  yet  over  whose  authorship,  date,  place 
of  composition,  and  immediate  destination  hangs  a  mystei"^ike  that  which  surrounds  its 
own  Melchisedec.     These  successive  topics  I  will  briefly  notice. 

I.   AUTHORSHIP. 

1.    CURRENT  TRADITION. 

Current  tradition  in  the  church  has  assigned  this  Epistle  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  the 
question  of  authorship  turns  largely  on  settling  the  grounds  of  this  tradition.  The  evi- 
dence divides  itself  into  two  branches — external  or  historical,  and  internal.  Looking  first 
at  the  former,  we  find  that  in  the  Eastern  Church  the  Epistle  was  fi'om  the  first  regarded 
as  canonical,  and  was  in  some  form  generally  attributed  to  Paul.     Pantaenus,  Clement. 

5 


6  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

and  Origen,  the  successive  heads  of*  the  Alexandrian  Catechetical  School  (180-250  A.  D.), 
all  regard  it  in  a  qualified  sense  as  his.  Pantaenus,  the  first  whom  we  know  to  have 
attached  to  it  the  name  of  the  apostle,  mentions  as  an  objection  to  this  view  the  absence 
in  its  opening  of  Paul's  customary  form  of  salutation,  but  explains  it  (fancifully,  I  think) 
from  the  apostle's  unwillingness  to  put  himself  into  seeming  rivalry  with  his  Lord,  God's 
special  apostle  ("A7rocrToA.os)  to  the  Hebrews.  (Eusebius'  "Hist.  Ecf'les."  VI.  14,  4.)  Cle- 
ment, his  pupil,  finds  a  weightier  objection.  He  sees  in  the  style  the  characteristics  rather 
of  Luke  than  of  Paul,  and  solves  the  difficulty  by  supposing  that  Paul  composed  it  in 
Aramaic,  and  Luke,  his  companion,  rendered  it  into  Greek.  (Eusebius'  "Hist.  Eccles." 
VI.  14,  2-4.)  So  Origen,  while  repeatedly  citing  the  Epistle  as  Paul's,  and  declaring  it 
worthy  of  him  in  its  wonderful  depth  of  thought,  yet  regards  the  style  as  quite  unlike  his 
and  far  more  classical.  "For  no  slight  reasons,"  he  says,  "have  ancient  men  handed 
down  the  Epistle  as  Paul's,  though  by  whom  it  was  actually  written  God  only  knows. 
Tradition  ascribes  it  partly  to  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  partly  to  Luke."  (Eusebius' 
"Hist.  Eccles."  VI.  25,  11.)  Whether  these  critical  doubts  died  away  or  not,  the  later 
Alexandrians,  as  Dionj'sius  (about  250),  Alexander  (about  312),  Athanasius  (died  373), 
Didymus  (died  395),  etc.,  simply  cite  the  Epistle  as  Paul's. 

In  Syria  the  admission  of  the  Epistle  into  the  Peshito  version  (in  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century)  shows  its  standing  as  canonical,  though  it  appears  as  anonymous,  and 
nothing  indicates  it  as  being  considered  Pauline.  Yet  the  later  Syrian  Church  generally 
held  to  its  Pauline  origin.  Jacob,  Bishop  of  Nisibis  (about  325),  cites  it  as  from  an 
apostle,  presumably  from  Paul ;  and  his  disciple,  Ephraem  Sjtus  (died  378),  refers  it 
unhesitatingly  to  Paul ;  and  in  Western  Syria  the  Synod  of  Antioch  (264),  in  an  Epistle 
to  Paul  of  Samosata,  couples  citations  from  it  with  passages  from  the  Corinthians  as 
belonging  to  the  same  author. 

Elsewhere  in  the  Eastern  Church  the  view  became  general  which  ascribed  the  Epistle 
to  Paul.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  (300-350)  repeatedly  refers  to  it  as  his,  and  enumerates 
fourteen  of  his  Epistles,  thus  clearly  embracing  this.  ("  Hist.  Eccles."  III.  3,  5.)  Yet  he 
speaks  of  those  in  the  Roman  Church  who  denied  its  Pauline  origin,  and  he  himself,  like 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  regards  it  as  a  translation  from  a  Hebrew  original  of  the  apostle 
("Hist.  Eccles."  III.  38,  23)  ;  and  he  elsewhere  classes  it  along  with  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon  and  that  of  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  and  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas,  the  Roman 
Clement,  and  Jude,  among  the  works  that  are  disputed  {ypa<t>ai  ivTi.\ey6iievai,  VI.  13,  6).  It 
is  attributed,  however,  immediately  to  Paul  in  the  sixtieth  canon  of  the  Council  at  Lao- 
dicea  (about  350),  by  Titus  of  Bostra  (died  371),  by  Basil  the  Great  (died  379),  and  his 
brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa ;  by  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  (died  386) ;  by  Gregory 
Nazianzen  (died  389),  by  Epiphanius  (died  402),  by  Chrysostom  (died  407),  by  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  and  others.  Also  Theodoret  (died  457),  in  the  introduction  to  his 
interpretation  of  the  Epistle  ;  still  he  does  this  to  contend  against  the  Arians,  who  rejected 
it  as  un-Pauline  and  uncanonical. 

The  Eastern  Church  thus  early  regarded  the  Epistle  as  from  Paul,  though  not  until  a 
late  period  as  proceeding  from  him  in  its  present  form.  The  weighty  authority  of  the 
Alexandrian  Fathers — Pantoenus,  Clement,  Origen — turns,  from  our  point  of  view,  rather 
against  the  Pauline  authorship,  when  we  reflect  that  it  was  probably  because  the  stamp 
of  apostolic  authority  was  deemed  necessary  by  them  to  its  canonical  validity,  and  they 
could  give  it  this  authority  only  by  assuming  that  Paul  was,  at  least  indirectly,  its  author. 
Their  reasons  for  denying  to  the  apostle  its  immediate,  and,  so  to  speak,  literary  author- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  7 

ship,  are  ftvi'  weightier  than  those  which  lead  tb.cm  to  bring  it  within  the  apostohc  circle. 
Witiiin  that  circle  no  name  but  that  of  Paul  could  be  connected  with  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  and  thej'  had  the  discernment  to  see  the  wide  difference  of  style  and  manner 
between  this  work  and  the  acknowledged  writings  of  the  apostle. 

We  turn  to  the  historj' of  the  Epistle  in  the  Western  Church.  In  Rome  it  must  have 
been  early  known  and  highly  valued,  as  the  Roman,  Clement  (about  100),  employs  many 
expressions  from  it  in  his  valuable  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  though  without  formal 
citation,  or  any  allusion  to  its  author.  Later  evidence  renders  it  improbable  that  liej 
attributed  it  to  Paul,  as  the  canon  of  Muratori,  belonging  to  tlie  end  of  the  second 
century,  reckons  thirteen  epistles  as  attributed  by  the  Roman  Church  to  Paul,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  being  excluded  from  the  list,  and,  indeed,  entirely  unmentioned.  So 
Caius,  Presbyter  at  Rome  (about  210),  reckoned  but  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul  ;  and 
Novatian  (about  250),  in  his  works,  "  de  Trinitate,"  and  "  de  Cibis  Judaicis,"  works 
abounding  in  Biblical  citations,  makes  no  mention  whatever  of  our  E])istle,  which  he 
could  hardly  have  refrained  from  doing  had  he  recognized  it  as  canonical,  not  to  say 
Pauline.  Outside  of  Rome,  Xeilullian,  of  the  North  African  Church,  in  the  close  of  the 
second,  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  knows  only  thirteen  Pauline  epistles.  He 
cites  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  support  of  his  Montanistic  views,  and  attributes  it 
without  questioning  to  3Lj'nfiba.s.  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  (died  258),  leaves  it 
wholly  unmentioned.  Irenaeus,  the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Lyons  (died  about  202),  rarely, 
if  at  all,  cited  the  book, — certainly  not  in  his  important  work'  against  the  heretics, — and 
is  said  to  have  denied  its  Pauline  authorship.  Such  was  the  state  of  opinion  regarding 
the  Epistle  in  the  Latin  Church  as  late  as  the  time  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  After  the 
middle  of  tlie  fourth  century  the  tide  turned,  probably  under  Eastern  influence.  Between 
368  and  400,  Hilary  ofJBoitiej'S,  Lucifer  of  Calaxis,  C.  Marius  Victorinus,  Philastrius 
of  Brescia,  and  Ambrose  of  Milan,  attribute  it  to  the  apostle,  while  Rnfinus,  Jerome, 
and  Augustine  (between  411  and  430)  receive  the  opinion  with  hesitation.  The  three 
African  Synods — of  Hippo  (303),  and  of  Carthage  (397,  419)— first  put  the  express  seal 
of  the  Western  Church  upon  the  canonical  validity  and  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the 
Epistle  ;  the  two  former,  indeed,  cautiously  ("  thirteen  epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
one  by  him  to  the  Hebrews");  but  the  third  decisively  ("  the  epistles  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  fourteen  in  number  ").  The  decree  of  the  councils  was  confirmed  by  the  Papal  See  ; 
and  thence  onward' through  the  Middle  Ages,  with  some  lingering  echoes  of  doubt  among 
Latin  writers,  the  voice  both  of  the  Eastern  and  the  Western  churches  was  unanimous 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation.     Of  late  opinions  I  shall  speak  subsequently. 

2.      INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

The  historical  testimony  thus  appears  by  no  means  decisive  in  favor  of  the  Pauline 
origin  of  the  Epistle.  To  tiic  view  that  it  came  from  the  apostle  in  il.<i  present  form,  that 
testimony  seems  to  me  decidedly  adverse.  The  internal  evidence,  I  think,  bears  against 
it  still  more  strongly.  There  is,  neither  in  its  style,  nor  form  of  doctrine,  nor  mode 
of  discussion,  nor  historical  allusions,  a  single  feature  which  requires,  nor,  except  the 
single  allusion  to  Timothy  (13  :  23),  which  would  naturally  lead  us  to  attribute  it  to  the 
apostle. 

First.  The  style  hews  almost  no  similariti/  to  that  of  Paul. — It  has  nothing  of  his 
impetuosity  and  abruptness,  none  of  his  favorite  expressions  and  forms  of  transition  ;  but 
moves  on   in  an  equable  and  uniform  flow  of  (luiet  majesty.     In  his  utmost  intensity  of 


8  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

emotion  the  writer  is  never  insensible  to,  and  never  sacrifices,  the  graces  of  diction.  He 
is  a  rhetorician,  trained  in  the  culture  of  the  schools,  and  always  writing,  as  Paul  never 
writes,  under  the  habitual  sway  of  that  culture.  Paul  is  never  a  rhetorician  ;  our  author 
is  always  a  rhetorician.  Not,  indeed,  that  Paul  does  not,  in  the  grandeur  of  his  thought, 
and  the  native  majesty  and  energy  of  his  diction,  often  snatch  spontaneously  some  of  the 
highest  graces  of  art.  And  not  that  our  author,  with  his  soul  profoundly  penetrated 
with  Christian  truth,  does  not  uniformly  rise  above  the  sphere  of  the  mere  rhetorician. 
Yet,  in  his  noblest  flights,  he  neither  can  nor  would  shake  off  his  habits  of  rhetorical 
expression — habits  which  are  utterly  alien  to  the  mind  of  the  apostle.  Nor,  while 
certainly  inferior  in  finish  and  grace  of  style,  can  we  deny  to  the  apostle,  on  the  whole, 
the  superior  place  as  a  writer.  His  largeness  and  depth  of  view,  his  burning  energy,  his 
confident  and  majestic  tread  amidst  the  Alpine  heights  ^f  divine  truth,  give  him  a 
Demosthenian  pre-eminence  in  sacred  oratory  ;  and  his  princii)al  epistles  stand  as  perpetual 
proofs  that  if  he  often  fed  infantile  Christians  with  the  milk  of  sacred  doctrine,  he  was 
able  to  utter  among  the  full  grown  and  mature  a  wisdom  which  the  wisdom  of  this  world 
has  never  transcended  nor  approached.  The  question  between  him  and  the  writer  to  the 
Hebrews  is  not  one  of  relative  excellence,  but  of  likeness  or  unlikeness.  And  unlike,  in 
their  native  endowments  and  style  of  culture,  they  certaii%  are.  The  one  writer  would 
certainly  never  have  written  the  opening  verse  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  still  less 
would  the  other  have  written  the  sonorous  and  rolling  periods  of  the  opening  of  the 
Hebrews. 

Second.  The  mitlior  of  our  Epistle  classes  himself  (2  :  3)  among  those  loho  received  the 
gospd  at  second  hand. — ^This  position  the  Apostle  Paul  could  never  have  assumed  for  a 
moment.  He  repels  almost  indignantly  any  lowering  of  himself  to  the  second  rank,  and 
maintains  that,  equally  with  the  greatest  of  the  apostles,  he  stood  in  immediate  commu- 
nication with  the  fountain  head  of  truth  and  authority.  He  stands  on  the  highest  level 
of  apostolic  prerogative,  having  seen  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  received  from  him  directly  his 
commission. 

Third.  Paul  torts  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. — His  whole  course  of  life  kept  his  mind 
open  to  the  world-wide  scope  and  purpose  of  the  gospel.  Granting,  then,  that  he  might 
write  an  apostolic  letter  to  his  Jewish  brethren  (whom  he  loved,  we  know,  Avith  most 
intense  and  tenderest  aflfection),  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  his  discussion  should  not 
have  occasionally  broken  over  its  bounds,  and  regarded  the  relations  of  the  gospel  to  the 
world  outside  of  Judaism.  There  are  indeed  abundant  indications  of  our  author's 
recognition  of  this  universal  character  of  the  gospel.  Christ  tasted  death  for  every  man. 
He  becomes  the  Son  of  man  that  he  may  share  that  flesh  and  blood  of  which  all  men 
are  partakers,  and  thus,  through  death,  deliver  men  from  that  fear  of  death  by  which 
universal  humanity  is  held  in  bondage.  Thus  the  idea  of  the  all-embracing  purpose  of 
redemption  certainly  lies  at  the  basis  of  his  Christology.  Yet  it  is  presujiposed  and 
hinted  at  merely.  In  no  single  instance  does  the  writer  depart  from  the  Old  Testament 
representation  of  Israel  as  the  "  people  of  God,"  and  declare  directly  its  widening  out 
to  the  breakin-j;  down  of  the  separating  wall,  and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  an 
equal  standing  with  the  Jews.  The  discits.<iion  confines  itself  to  the  Judaistic  relations  of 
the  gospel  almost  as  closely  as  if  the  Gentile  world  had  no  existence.  AVith  a  concentra- 
tion of  view  remarkable  under  any  conditions  of  authorship,  but  wholly  inconceivable  in 
the  case  of  the  world-embracing  and  irrepressible  spirit  of  the  great  a])ostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  with  an  unswerving  singleness  of  purpose,   the  writer  discusses  the  relations 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  9 

of  the  New  Covenant  to  tlie  Old  almost  as  if  the  extension  of  that  covenant  to  all 
peoples  were  wholly  unknown  to  him.  A  discussion  so  conducted  by  one  whose  life  and 
soul  were  absorbingly  devoted  to.  the  evangelization  of  the  Grentiles  seems  wholly  incon- 
ceivable. 

Fourth.  Form  of  citations  from  the  Old  Testament. — Another  objection  to  the  Pauline 
authorship  may  be  found  in  the  form  of  the  citations  from  the  Old  Testament.  In  his 
acknowledged  epistles,  the  apostle  makes  his  citations  indifferently  from  the  Hebrew 
original  and  from  the  Septuagint,  translating  and  quoting  from  memory  with  great 
freedom.  Our  author,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  his  citations  invariably  from  the 
Septuagint,  and  gives  no  indication  of  even  an  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew.  He 
quotes,  too,  with  verbal  exactness,  having  apparently,  at  least  in  the  longer  passages,  the 
text  from  which  he  quotes  Aefore  him  ;  and  Bleek  has  shown  that  in  the  citations  from 
the  Septuagint,  wherever  uie  readings  differ,  our  author  draws  in  general  from  the 
Alexandrian  Codex,  while  Paid  uses  exclusively  the  readings  of  the  Vatican.  In  their 
modes,  too,  of  introducing  Old  Testament  passages,  the  observing  reader  will  find  a 
uniform  and  very  striking  difference. 

Fifth.  Difference  in  the  coloring  and  the  prominence  given  to  different  features  of  the 
gospel. — While  there  is  no  ^ctrinal  discrepancy,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  an  entire 
harmony  in  the  two  writers'  fundamental  conceptions  of  the  gospel,  there  is  yet  a  wide 
difference  in  coloring,  and  in  the^rominence  given  to  different  features  of  it.  Both  hold 
to  the  pre-existence  of  Christ ;  WDtli  insist  alike  upon  his  sacrificial  death.  But  Paul 
dwells  much  upon  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  while  our  author  makes  express  mention 
of  it  but  once,  and  that  in  the  very  close  of  the  Epistle.  (13  :  20.)  On  the  other  hand, 
he  dwells  upon  the  ascension  and  the  heavenly  high  priesthood,  while  Paul  refers  but 
once,  and  that  passingly  (Rom.  8  :  34),  to  his  heavenly  intercession,  and  in  no  single 
instance  employs  the  designation  of  high  priest,  of  which  the  name  (occurring  seventeen 
times),  and  the  functions,  are  the  main  burden  of  our  Epistle.  So  an  aspect  of  faith  to 
which  Paul  makes  but  casual  allusion  (2  Cor.  5  :  7)  our  author  makes  the  basis  of  his 
formal  definition  and  extended  illustration  (chapter  11),  treating  it  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment point  of  view,  while  Paul's  favorite  phrases,  "justification,"  "righteousness  of 
fiiith,"  etc.  {siKaiovv,  SiKaiuxTis,  SiKawirvvr]  eK  TTi'trTea.?),  are  entirely  foreign  to  him.  These  illus- 
trations of  s])ecific  differences  might  be  greatly  extended,  and,  in  fact,  drawn  from  every 
part  of  the  Epistle.  They  certainly  indicate  no  contrariety  of  views  in  the  two  writers. 
Every  doctrine  that  is  taught  explicitely  by  the  one  is,  I  think,  implied,  if  not  expressly 
affirmed,  in  the  teachings  of  the  other.  We  may,  I  think,  in  fact,  detect  in  our  author 
traces  of  Pauline  companionship  and  influence.  Yet  the  diversities  are  very  wide,  as 
might  be  expected  from  different  minds,  subjected  to  widely  different  modes  of  culture, 
and  dealing  with  a  range  of  subjects  exhaustless  in  their  contents  and  infinite  in  their 
variety. 

Sixth.  Historical  reference. — Finally,  there  is  but  one  historical  reference  in  our 
Epistle  that  would  seem  to  favor  its  reference  to  Paul — namel}',  the  relations  of  our 
author  to  the  apostle's  favorite  young  companion,  Timothy.  (13  :  23.)  This,  however, 
on  close  examination,  seems  rather  to  bear  a  different  testimonj'.  We  know  of  no  impris- 
onment of  Timothy  during  the  life  of  the  apostle,  a  deliverance  from  which  could  here 
be  referred  to.  So  f\ir  as  probabilities  go,  it  would  seem  likely  that  Timothy,  summoned 
to  Paul's  side  in  his  last  impri.sonment,  shared  that  imprisonment,  and  was  released  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle.     The  most  plausible  conjecture,  therefore,  warranted  by  this 


10        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

allusion,  would  point  to  a  composition  of  the  Epistle  after  the  death  of  the  apostle,  and 
would  thus  exclude  him  from  the  number  of  possible  candidate^  for  its  authorship.  With 
any  known  event  during  the  apostle's  life  it  is  wholly  out  of  harmony  ;  and,  so  far  as  this 
goes,  it  bears  against  the  view  which  puts  his  name  at  the  head  of  the  Epistle. 

Most  of  the  above  objections  are  equally  adverse  to  any  form  of  Pauline  authorship, 
whether  immediate,  or  by  a  dictation  of  the  substance  put  into  form  by  another,  or 
through  an  Aramaic  original  translated  into  Greek  by  a  friend  or  disciple.  Indeed,  we 
may  dismiss  at  once,  and  finally,  the  idea  that  the  work  is  a  translation.  Its  rhetoric,  its 
Septuagint  quotations  are  against  it,  and  nothing  whatever  in  the  Epistle  favors  it.  If 
any  New  Testament  work,  this  surely  bears  the  impress  of  an  original. 

To  whom,  then,  are  we  to  assign  the  Epistle?  Antiquity  connects  with  it,  besides  the 
name  of  Paul,  the  names  of  Clement  of  Rome,  Silas,  Luke,  and  Barnabas.  For  the  two 
former  there  is  really  no  evidence  whatever.  The  use  of  the  Epistle  by  Clement,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  proves  that  it  was  extant  in  his  time,  but  makes  against,  rather 
than  in  favor  of,  the  supposition  that  he  was  its  author.  Guericke,  Ebrard,  and  Delitzsch, 
follow  Origen,  in  referring  the  substance  of  it  to  Paul  and  the  form  to  Luke.  But  the 
hypothesis  of  such  dictation  is  an  unwarranted  conjecture,  made,  apparently,  only  to  save 
the  apostolic  dignity  of  the  Epistle.  The  style  of  Luke  has  indeed  a  general  superficial 
resemblance  to  that  of  this  work,  in  that  it  bears  the  impress  of  culture  beyond  any  other 
New  Testament  writings,  and  moves  with  a  certain  calm  stateliness  characteristic  of  our 
author ;  but  in  all  radical  resemblances  to  the  style  of  our  Epistle,  it  is,  I  think,  wholly 
wanting.  And  an  independent  authorship  by  Luke  is  certainly  out  of  the  question.  He 
was  indeed  one  of  those  who  received  the  gospel  at  second  hand  ;  but  his  position  in  the 
church  lacked  the  almost  apostolical  dignity  which  clearly  belongs  to  our  author  ;  and  he 
was  not  a  Jew,  which  the  author  of  this  Epistle  certainly  was. 

Several  modern  scholars,  as  Twesten,  UUniann,  Wicseler,  Conybeare  and  Howson, 
follow  Tertullian  in  assigning  the  Epistle  to  Barnabas.  This  is  not  without  some  plausible 
grounds.  As  a  Levite,  Barnabas  might  be  specially  interested  in  those  priestly  aspects  of 
the  gospel,  which  in  our  Epistle  are  so  prominent ;  as  a  Cypriote,  he  might  have  stood  in 
some  special  relations  to  Alexandria;  and  his  title,  Son  of  Exhortation — not  "Son  of 
Consolation"  (uibs  t^?  TrapaK^^o-eo)?) — might  answer  to  some  features,  both  of  sentiment  and 
stj'le,  of  our  Epistle.  But  nothing  that  we  know  of  Barnabas  warrants  our  expecting 
from  him  any  such  profound  Old  Testament  researches,  or  such  elaborate  graces  of  style 
as  characterize  our  Epistle  ;  and  from  his  residence,  more  or  less  protracted,  at  Jerusalem, 
we  might  expect  clearer  references  to  the  temple  service  than  are  found  in  it.  Our  Epis- 
tle connects  the  Jewish  ritual  service  rather  with  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  than  with  the 
temple,  which  is  not,  I  think,  once  expressly  named  in  the  Epistle.  We  may  add  that  if 
Barnabas  was  the  author  of  the  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us  under  his  name, 
then  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  cannot  be  from  his  pen  ;  and  if  it  is  from  him,  it  is  cer-  • 
tainly  an  extraordinary  ordering  of  Providence  that  the  name  of  this  great  leader  in  the 
church  should  be  transmitted  to  later  ages  in  connection  with  an  almost  worthless  forgery, 
and  almost  wholly  dissevered  from  the  work  which  would  have  placed  him  among  the 
noblest  instructors  of  the  church,  and  in  the  very  first  rank  of  Biblical  authorship. 

The  only  name,  I  think,  connected  with  the  authorship  of  our  Epistle,  for  which  any 
strong  argument  can  be  made,  is  one  wholly  unknown  in  this  connection  to  Christian 
antiquity — that  of  Apollos,  The  first  to  ascribe  the  Epistle  to  him,  breaking  in  on  the 
settled  current  of  Mediaeval  opinion,  was  Luther,  followed  by  some  of  his  compeers  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.        11 

Reformation.  This  lij'pothesis  once  started  has  found  gradually  increasing  favor.  Cleri- 
ens  and  Semler,  Bleek,  the  Coryphoeus  among  the  e.xpounders  of  this  Epi-stle ;  more 
recently,  Tholuck,  Credner,  Alford,  Lunemann,  Kurtz,  and  among  the  very  latest,  W.  F. 
Moulton,  have  given  in  their  adherence  to  the  view  which  fixes  the  authorship  upon 
Apollu.s.  The  grounds  for  a  certain  conclusion  are  doubtless  wanting  ;  but  all  the  positive 
evidence  tend.'i  in  this  direction.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  was  certainly  a  Jew,  and 
neu'ly  as  certainly  an  extra-Palestinian  Jew.  He  was  a  person  of  elegant  culture,  and 
trained  in  the  arts  of  rhetoric  :  for  the  Epistle  is  full  of  fine  rhetorical  points.  He  was 
apparently  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrian  Philo  (though  untinctured  by 
Piiilo's  allegorizing  and  mystical  tendencies) ;  for  the  verbal  coincidences  are  too  numerous 
and  striking  to  be  the  result  of  accident.  He  was,  therefore,  in  all  probability  from  Alex- 
andria. He  stood  as  a  teacher  on  high  and  independent  ground,  and  yet  was  not  of  those 
who  had  received  the  gospel  at  first  hand.  He  differed  widely  from  Paul  in  his  mode  of 
presenting  the  gospel ;  was  a  far  more  finished  writer  and  commanded  a  more  eloquent 
style,  and  yet  is  actuated  by  the  same  spirit,  and  is  in  all  fundamental  points  in  perfect 
harmony  with  him.  He  was  profoundly  versed  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  had  that  power 
of  fathoming  and  drawing  out  its  hidden  meanings,  which  would  enable  him  "  with  great 
power  to  convince  the  Jews  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ," 
as  witness  his  treatment  of  Ps.  8  :  5->7  ;  of  Ps.  109  :  4  ;  39  :  40,  and  of  the  Lord's  Mel- 
chisedec  priesthood.  All  these  requisites  to  the  authorship  of  this  Epistle  are  fulfilled  in 
Apollos,  and  we  could  scarcely  find  them  more  significantly  summed  up  than  in  the  words 
of  Acts  18  :  24,  25  .  "Apollos,  a  Jew  from  Alexandria,  an  eloquent  (or  lettered)  man, 
mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  with  great  power  convincing  the  Jews  from  the  Old  Testament 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ."  Add  to  this  his  further  training  by  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  disci- 
ples of  Paul,  his  companionship  with  the  apostle  himself,  and  the  crowning  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  I  doubt  if  we  have  much  farther  to  seek  for  the  man  through  whom 
the  Spirit  enriched  the  church  with  this  precious  storehouse  of  sacred  truth. 

II.   DESTINATION  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

All  that  is  clear  in  regard  to  the  destination  of  the  Epistle  is  that  it  was  directed  to 
Hebrew  Christians,  who  had  distinguished  themselves  by  their  fidelity  and  Christian  benefi- 
cence (6  :  10),  but  had  declined  from  their  steadfastness,  and  had  ceased  from  their 
Christian  progress,  and  were  relapsing  into  Judaism.  That  they  were  Christians  in  Pales 
tine  was  generally  assumed  by  antiquity,  and  might  naturally  be  inferred  from  there  being 
no  mention  of  an  intermixture  of  Gentile  believers.  Yet  this  reason  is  scared}'  decisive, 
as  there  may  have  been  in  many  places  Christian  bodies  prepondei'antly  Hebrew ;  and 
assuming  Apollos  to  be  the  author,  it  seems  scarcely  likely  that  he  stood  in  any  such  rela- 
tion to  the  churclies  of  Palestine  as  this  letter  would  imply.  It  would  be  more  natural  to 
find  its  first  readers  in  Alexandria,  a  place  swarming  with  Hebrews,  and  to  which  the 
style  of  thought  and  diction  would  seem  more  fitted  than  to  Palestine.  This  hypothesis 
has  been  adopted  by  Credner,  Hilgenfeld,  Wieseler,  Biuisen,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  and 
others.  Yet  it  lacks  positive  support ;  there  is  no  certainty  that  any  Christian  churches  yet 
existed  in  Alexandria,  and  the  entire  ignorance  of  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  regarding  its 
author  and  history  is  strongly  against  it.  Stronger  reasons,  I  think,  exist  for  finding,  with 
Alford,  Kurtz,  and  others,  its  original  circle  of  readers  in  Rome.  This  view  would  explain 
the  early  knowledge  and  use  of  the  Papistic  by  the  Roman  Clement,  would  harmonize 
with  the  references  (10  :  32-34)  to  persecutions  experienced  by  the  Cliristians  under  Nero 


12        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


in  tlie  year  64,  and  under  Domltian  in  about  74,  in  which  express  mention  is  made  (Euse- 
bius'  "  Hist.  Eceles."  III.  17)  of  the  confiscation  of  their  goods  (10  :  34),  and  is  strongly 
supported  by  the  language  of  the  closing  salutation,  ''those  from  Italy  (oi  <i77b  t^s 'iraAias) 
salute  j'ou."  Were  the  language  "those  of  Italy"  (o;  fV  rijs 'iTaAiw),  "they  that  belong 
to  Italy,"  it  might  naturally  be  referred  to  one  who  was  writing  from  Italy,  and  was 
giving  to  foreigners  the  salutations  of  his  Italian  brethren.  But  the  phrase  "those 
from"  Italy  (ol  in-o),  indicates  rather  Italians  absent  from  Italy,  and  making  his  letter  the 
vehicle  of  their  greetings  to  their  countrymen.  Or,  of  course,  it  might  indicate  Italian 
companions  of  the  writer,  addressing  their  greetings  to  friends  in  some  other  region  than 
Italy.  Yet  of  the  suppositions  the  former  is  the  more  probable,  and  it  harmonizes  Avith 
the  intrinsic  probability  that  an  Epistle  of  so  great  importance  would  be  more  likely  to 
find  its  destination  in  Rome.     The  question  stands  open. 

III.   PLACE  AND  DATE  OF  COMPOSITION. 

The  place  of  composition  of  the  letter  lies  in  still  deeper  obscurity  than  its  destination, 
and  is  indeed  of  less  importance.  According  to  our  i)revious  view,  it  was  not  written  in 
Italy,  and  as  the  place  where  it  was  written  contained  evidently  Italian  residents,  it  may, 
as  supposed  b}' Bleek,  Kurtz,  etc.,  be  some  seaport  town,  as  Corinth  or  Ephesus,  easilj' 
accessible  to  fugitives  from  the  Roman  persecutions,  espeeiall}'  as  these  towns  had  been 
the  former  scenes  of  the  labors  of  Apollos. 

As  to  the  time  of  composition,  there  is  a  very  general  concurrence  among  all  expositors 
in  the  opinion  that  it  was  written  somewhere  between  the  years  62  and  67.  That  the 
Jewish  Temple  was  still  standing  cannot  be  inferred  from  chapter  10,  where  the  present  is 
certainly  the  historical  present,  and  is  describing  under  the  present  time  the  arrangements 
of  the  JMosaic  tabernacle,  and  therefore  has  no  necessary  reference  to  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. Still,  if  so  great  a  blow  to  Judaism  as  the  destruction  of  the  temple  liad  actually 
been  experienced,  it  seems  hardly  credible  that  the  Epistle,  reticent  as  it  is  regarding  his- 
torical events,  should  not  have  given  some  intimation  of  it ;  and  it  seems,  on  the  whole, 
safest  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Epistle  a  little  before  the  year  70,  when  the  flames  of  civil 
war  were  reddening  the  horizon,  and  giving  a  fearful  significance  to  the  words  "and  so 
much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  dai/  [the  dies  irce,  the  day  of  the  great  impending  catastrophe) 
approaching."     (10  :  25;  compare  1  Cor.  3  :  13.) 

IV.    PURPOSE  AND   CONTENTS. 

The  immediate  object  of  the  Epistle  is  to  arrest  the  backsliding  of  a  body  of  Jewish 
Christians  who,  having  once  distinguished  themselves  by  their  Christian  activity,  benefi- 
cence, and  constancy  under  persecutions,  were  now  relapsing  into  Judaism.  To  the 
attainment  of  this  end  it  jn-oceeds  with  a  singleness  and  intensity  of  purpose  which  con- 
trast strikingly  with  the  placid  smoothness  of  the  style.  It  divides  itself  in  general  into 
a  doctrinal  or  argumentative,  and  a  practical  or  hortatory  part.  The  argumentative  part 
extends  from  the  beginning  to  chapter  10  :  19.  The  i>ractical  part  extends  from  chapter 
10  :  20  to  the  end.  In  the  theoretical  portions,  however,  are  interspersed  hortatory  pas- 
sages of  greater  or  less  length,  and  the  hortatory  portion  is  more  or  less  tinged  with  argu- 
ment. Yet  the  general  dividing  line  is  clear  and  unmistakable,  and  the  argument  proceeds 
on  a  single  line  of  discussion,  aimijig  to  show  the  superiority  of  the  New  Covenant  to  the 
Old  by  showing  the  measureless  superiority  of  Him  who  was  the  Introducer,  Founder,  and 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.         13 


High  Priest  of  the  New  Covenant  to  the  corresponding  classes  of  personages  in  the  Old. 
The  analysis  of  the  Epistle  is  as  follows  : 

PART  I.    ARGUxMENTATIVE  AND  DOCTRINAL. 

1.    CHRIST  SUPERIOR  TO   THE   ANGELS. 

Ch.  1.  (1)  The  manifold  and  frag mentdry  forms  of  Revelation  in  the  Old  Covenant 
have  been  replaced  by  one  final  Revelation  in  the  Son,  who,  as  Mediator  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant, is  exalted  as  high  above  the  angels  (messengers),  mediators  of  the  Old,  as  his  name 
(Son)  IS  more  excellent  than  theirs.     (1  :  1-4.) 

(2)  Proof  and  illustration  from  the  Old  Testament  of  Chi'ist's  superiority  as  Son  of 
God  to  the  angels.     (5-14.) 

Ch.  2.  (3)  Brief  exhortation  to  heed  a  revelation  made  by  so  extraordinary  a  person- 
age. By  as  much  as  the  Son  is  superior  to  the  angels,  by  so  much  greater  the  peril  of  dis- 
obeying hi<i  message  than  theirs.     (1-4.) 

(4)  Christ,  though  as  Son  infinitely  superior  to  the  angels,  yet  was  humbled  temporarily 
below  them,  that,  suffering  and  dying  as  man,  he  might  rescue  and  elevate  his  human 
brethren,  and,  as  a  faithful  High  Priest,  reconcile  them  to  God.     (5-18.) 

2.  CHRIST  SUPERIOR   TO   MOSES. 

Ch.  3.  (1)  Christ,  as  Leader  of  the  New  Testament  Israel  and  founder  of  the  New 
Testament  house  of  God,  greater  than  Moses,  leader  of  ancient  Israel,  and  founder  of  the 
Old  Testament  hotie  of  God.     (1-6.) 

(2)  Solemn  coaming  to  the  readers  against  rep)eating  the  rebellion  of  their  fathers  and 
excluding  themselves  from  Gods  Sabbatic  rest,  as  the  rebels  under  Moses  forfeited  the  rest 
of  Canaan.     (7-19.) 

Ch.  4.  (3)  The  rest  of  God  forfeited  by  ancient  Israel,  still  open  under  its  higher  form, 
as  God's  Sabbatic  rest,  to  the  spiritual  Israel.     (1-10.) 

(4)  Renewed  exhortation  in  view  of  the  renewed  promise  of  a  higher  rest,  and  based  on 
the  spiritual  and  searching  qualities  of  the  roord ;  and  transition,  through  their  need  of  a 
syrnpathising  high  priest,  to  the  next  and  chief  topic  of  the  Epistle.     (11-16.) 

3.  CHRIST  SUPERIOR  TO  AARON. 

Christ,  the  High  Priest  of  the  New  Dispensation,  superior  to  Aaron,  the  high  priest 
of  the  Old. 

Ch.  5.     (1)  Necessary  qualities  of  the  high  priest.     (1-10.) 

(a)  He  is  taken  from  among  men,  that  he,  as  man,  may  deal  tenderly  with  men.    (1-3. ) 

(b)  Christ  is  not  self-appointed,  but  called  of  God.     (4. ) 

(c)  Christ  received  his  priestly  office  from  God,     (5,  6. ) 

{d)  In  his  fleshly  nature  as  man,  Christ  wrestled  with  the  fear  of  death,  and,  learning 
obedience  from  suffering,  was  perfected  for  his  saving  and  priestly  work.     (7-10.) 

(2)  Long  hortatory  passage,  suggested  by  the  incapacity  of  the  readers  to  enter  on  the 
profound  discussion  before  them ;  namely,  the  priesthood  of  Christ.     (5:11-6:  20.) 

(a)  Failure  of  the  readers  in  that  spiritual  maturity  which  they  should,  by  this  time, 
have  attained.     (11-14.) 

Ch.  6.  {b)  To  this  condition  of  spiritual  maturity  just  described  the  writer  exhorts 
his  readers  to  hasten  forward,  and  not  linger  among  the  elements  of  the  religious  life. 
He  alarms  them  with  the  possibility  that  their  backsliding  may  become  irretrievable,  but 
assures  them  of  his  better  and  brighter  hope  for  them.     (1-8.) 


14        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

(c)  Tlie  brighter  aspects  of  the  case.  The  author  would  encourage  as  well  as  alarm. 
He  declares  to  his  readers  his  confidence  that  under  God's  covenant  faithfulness  better 
things  await  them  ;  cites  his  oath  to  Abraham  as  a  sure  ground  of  confidence,  and,  remind- 
ing them  of  their  hope  which  enters  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  and  rests  on  the  heavenly 
High  Priest,  thus  brings  his  subject  gracefully  round  to  the  starting  point  in  the  heavenly 
high  priesthood  of  Jesus,  from  which  he  had  digressed.     (9-20.) 

Ch.  7.     (3)   The  royal  Melchisedec  priesthood  of  Chrvit.     (1-28.) 

{a)  Summary  of  the  Old  Testament  description  of  Melchisedec  in  those  historical  feat- 
ures which  determine  the  character  of  his  priesthood.     (1-3.) 

{h)  Personal  greatness  of  Melchisedec  illustrated  by  his  receiving  tithes  from  Abraham, 
and  that  under  extraordinary  conditions.     (4-JO. ) 

(c)  Application  of  these  facts  in  regard  to  Melchisedec  to  the  subject.  The  intro- 
duction of  a  new  priesthood  in) plies  the  failure  of  the  Levitical,  and  the  abrogation  of  the 
law  for  which  it  stood  responsible.     (11,  12.) 

(d)  This  change  in  the  law  shown  historically  in  the  change  of  tribe  to  which  the  priest 
belongs.     (13,  14.) 

(e)  The  change  is  shown  more  clearly  in  the  intrinsic  character  of  the  new  priesthood, 
■which  is  constituted  not  after  a  carnal  ritual,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life.     (15-19.) 

(/)  A  further  proof  of  the  superiority  of  the  Melchisedec  priesthood,  is  that  it  is  insti- 
tuted with  the  sanction  of  an  oath.     (20-22.) 

{g)  Christ's  Melchisedec  priesthood,  unlike  the  Levitical  succession,  is  a  single,  per- 
petual, everlasting  priesthood,  which  can  thus  carry  through  to  completeness  its  work  of 
salvation.     (23-25.) 

(/i)  Exultant  summing  up  of  the  qualities  of  Christ's  Melchisedec  priesthood  neces- 
sary to  be  allied  with  those  of  the  Aaronieal  high  priest,  to  which  topic  ver.  26-28  form 
a  transition.     (26-28.) 

Ch.  8.  (4)  The  efficient  Aaronieal  high  priesthood  of  Christ  in  the  heavenly  sanctu- 
ary.    (8  :  1-10  :  18.) 

(a)  As  a  royal  Melchisedec  Priest,  Christ  has  taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  as  Levitical  High  Priest,  he  has  gone  into  the  heavenly  tabernacle.     (1,  2.) 

(6)  As  such  a  High  Priest,  Christ  must  of  necessity  have  something  to  offer,     (3.) 

(c)  So  vitally  connected  are  these  two,  the  priesthood  and  the  offering,  that  on  earth 
there  would  be  no  place  for  his  priesthood,  as  there  exist  already  there  those  who  make 
the  offerings  of  the  law,  and  whose  prerogatives  are  inviolate.     (4. ) 

{d)  But,  in  foct,  he  is  a  High  Priest,  and  can,  therefore,  make  offerings,  because  he 
has  the  true  tabernacle  and  the  true  priesthood,  of  which  theirs  were  but  a  shadow,  and 
a  priesthood  as  much  better  than  theirs  as  is  the  covenant,  of  which  he  is  the  Mediator, 
better  than  theirs.     (5,6.) 

(e)  For  that  it  is  better  than  the  first  (this  subordinately  and  in  passing)  is  clear  from 
its  having  superseded  it.  For  God,  having  found  the  first  inefficacious,  replaces  it  by  a 
new.  and  the  former  one  becomes  antiquated  and  expires.     (7-13.) 

Ch.  9.  (/)  But  that  First  Covenant  (for  to  see  how  the  New  is  organized,  we  must 
look  back  to  that,  its  copy ;  and  to  see  what  the  new  High  Priest  must  offer,  we  must 
look  back  and  see  what  the  old  one  offered)  had  its  ordinances  of  service,  and  its  sanctu- 
ary consisting  of  two  tabernacles,  an  outer  or  more  common,  and  an  inner  and  holier  one. 
(9:1-6.) 

{g)  Now  in  the  outer  sanctuary  the  priests  performed  constant  ministrations,  but  into 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.        15 


this  inner  sanctuary  the  hight  priest  went  alone  once  a  year,  not  icithovt  blood — he  carried 
in  there  the  blcod  of  slaughtered  victims,  symbolically,  though  not  really  expiatory  of 
sin.     (6-10.) 

(h)  We  see,  then,  what  is  demanded  of  our  High  Priest.  It  is  hlood.  And  as  his 
is  the  true,  and  not  the  symbolical  priesthood,  as  he  is  in  the  genuine,  and  not  the  copied 
sanctuary,  he  must  offer  blood  that  is  really,  and  not  symbolically,  cleansing.  He  brings 
Ills  oivn.     (11-14.) 

(t)  This  spiritual  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  warrants  and  demands  a  New  Cove- 
nant, inaugurated,  like  the  First,  with  blood,  but  the  blood  of  a  nobler  victim  than  that 
of  the  Old  ;  for  Christ  has  entered  into  the  true  antitypical  sanctuary,  not,  like  the 
earthly  high  priests,  for  repeated  entrances,  but  once  for  all,  never  to  leave  it  until  he 
comes  without  sin  unto  salvation.     (15-28.) 

Ch.  10.     (5)   Summing  up  of  the  entire  high  priestly  argument.     (10:1-18.) 

[a]  Finality  of  Christ's  voluntary  sacrifice  as  opposed  to  the  symbolical  sacrifices  of 
the  law.     (I-IO  ) 

(/;)  Finality  of  Christ's  priestly  ministration  as  opposed  to  the  oft-repeated  ministra- 
tions of  the  Levitical  priesthood.     (11-14.) 

(c)  Finality  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  of  the  sacrifice  which  seals  it  as  efi"ecting  the 
absolute  remission  of  sins.     (15-18.) 

PART  II.    HORTATORY. 

(a)  Exhortation  to  approach  God  boldly,  to  stir  up  each  other  to  love,  and  not  to 
forsake  the  Christian  assemblies.     (19-25.) 

(6)  The  exhortation  sharpened  by  the  terrible  consequences  of  apostasy.     (26-31.) 

(c)  Encouragement  from  past  fidelity,  and  exhortation  not  to  throw  away  its  fruits. 
(32-39. ) 

Ch.  11.  (2)  Encouraging  survey  of  the  achievements  of  faith  in  Jewish  history. 
Muster  roll  of  the  heroes  of  faith.     (1-40.) 

(a)  Illustrations  of  faith  in  the  antediluvian  believers.     (1-7.) 

(b)  Example  of  Abraham  and  Sarah.     (8-12.) 

(c)  Retrospective  glance  at  the  above-cited  believers.     (13-16.) 
{d)  Examples  of  the  Jewish  patriarchs.     (17-22.) 

(ft)  Example  of  Moses.     (23-29.) 

(/)  Examples  from  the  Exodus  of  Israel  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.     (30-40.) 
Ch.  12.   (3)  Reneived  exhortations,  suggested  chiefly  by  this  historical  survey.    (12  :  1-29. ) 
(a)  Incitement  to  endurance  from  the  encompassing  presence  of  this  host  of  witnesses, 

and  especially  of  Jesus,  their  Leader.     (1-3.) 

(6)  Their  afflictions  the  fruits  of  God's  chastening  love.     (4-11.) 

(c)  They  are  to  resist  firmly  all  relaxing  tendencies  by  cultivating  unity,  purity,  and 

constant  watchfulness.     (12-17.) 

{d)  They  are  to  hearken  to  these  exhortations  in  view  of  the  grandeur  and  exalted 

character  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  the  danger  of  disregarding  its  blessings  and  claims. 

(18-29.) 

CONCLUSION. 
Ch.  13.     (1)  Practical  admonitions  of  a  general  character.     (1-9.) 

(2)  Reneiced  exhortations  against  apostasy.     (10-21.) 

(3)  Final  injunctions,  personal  references,  and  sahitations.     (22-25. ) 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


CHAPTEK  I. 


GOD,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets, 
2  Hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  /lis  Son,  | 


1  God,  having  of  old  time  spoken  unto  the  fathers 
in  the  prophets  by  divers   portions  and   in   divers 

2  manners,  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days  spoken  unto 


PART  I. 

1.    CHRIST   SUPERIOR   TO   THE    ANQELS. 

Ch.  I.  (1)  The  manifold  and  fragmentary 
fortns  of  Revelation  in  the  Old  Covenant  have 
been  replaced  by  one  Jinal  Revelation  in  the 
Son,  who,  as  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant,  is 
exalted  as  high  above  the  angels  (messengers), 
mediators  of  the  Old,  as  his  name  (Son)  is 
more  excellent  than  theirs.     (1  :  1-4.) 

1.  At  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man- 
ners. The  full  sounding  words  of  the  origi- 
nal {no\vfjiepCii,  in  inany  parts,  and  iroAuTpoTrus, 
in  m,any  ways)  open  with  sonorous  asso- 
nance the  majestic  sentence.  The  former, 
not  'at  sundry  times'  (which  in  itself  might 
show  the  privileged  character  of  the  Old  Dis- 
pensation), but  in  m,any  parts,  by  piecemeal, 
fragm,entarily  {tt-fi-sxa,  divide;  y-ipoi,  a  part); 
the  ancient  revelation  being  made,  not  in  one 
complete  whole,  but  gradually  and  in  frag- 
ments, as  by  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  Isaiah, 
Malachi,  etc.,  each  in  his  own  separate  way 
lielping  to  complete  the  slowly  developed  sys- 
tem. The  'various  ways,'  or  m,odes,  are  by 
promise  and  vision,  as  to  Abraham  :  by  the 
giving  of  the  Law  and  the  instituting  of  sym- 
bolical expiations  through  Moses;  bj'  lyrical 
song  through  David  ;  by  oral  and  symbolical 
prediction  through  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel, 
Malachi,  etc.  The  two  terms  together  denote 
the  whole  variety  of  promises,  predictions, 
and  symbols  by  which  the  divine  plan  was 
gradually  unfolded  under  the  Old  Covenant, 
as  against  the  one  complete  revelation  made 
through  the  Son  under  the  New.  Spake — 
having  spoken}  The  verb  (XaAe<o)  in  the  class- 
ics, ordinarily  to  talk,  prattle,  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  habitually  of  dignified  speak- 
ing. Unto  the  fathers — the  wiiole  body  of 
the  ancient  Jewish  people,  as  a  term  of  affec- 


tionate  reverence.     By   (in)   the    prophets* 

"In" — either  Hebraistic  for  by,  as  instru- 
mental, or  better,  strictly  in,  as  denoting  the 
sphere  of  God's  speaking.  He  was  in  the 
prophets  and  in  the  Son;  and  as  being  in, 
spoke  through  them.  (So  De  Wette,  Laiige, 
Liinemann,  Delitzsch.)  Prophets— not  here 
prophets  in  the  narrower  sense,  as  Samuel, 
Isaiah,  etc.,  but  all  the  great  men  who  in 
various  ways  were  organs  of  the  divine  com- 
munications, as  Abraham,  Moses,  David, 
Isaiah.  So  a  prophet  is  not  merely,  perhaps 
not  properly,  a  /ore-speaker,  but  a  forth- 
speaker,  an  utterer  of  God's  thoughts. 

2.  In  these  last  days,  or,  at  the  close  of 
these  days.  'These  days.'  Looking  down 
the  vista  of  the  future,  the  Jewish  prophets 
saw  the  then  present  period  ('these  days') 
bounded  and  succeeded  by  the  age  of  the 
Messiah.  'These  days,'  therefore,  as  "this 
age"  (o  aioii'  ouTot),  became  a  sort  of  term,inus 
techniciis  for  the  ante-Messianic  period,  and 
"the  coming  age"  for  the  Messianic  time 
which  was  to  succeed  it.  Jewish  prophecy, 
indeed,  drew  no  clear  dividing  line  between 
the  first  and  ."second  comings  of  the  Anointed 
One.  The  actual  unfolding  of  events  broke 
this  period  into  two  portions — that  which  pre- 
ceded and  that  which  followed  the  Second 
Coming.  The  time  between  the  First  and  the 
Second  Coming  became  a  sort  of  intermediate 
period,  a  transient  interval  before  the  great 
drama  of  eternity  was  fully  inaugurated. 
Christians  during  this  period  were  living  in 
"the  last  time"  ;  but  they  were  alread3'-  sub- 
stantially in  "the  coming  age,"  and  had 
"tasted  the  powers  of  the  coming  age"  («:  5), 
and  it  wis  at  the  introduction  of  this  first 
section,  at  the  "  interlocking  of  the  ages" 
(iTvvTtKeCa  rutv  aiuiviov,  9  :  26)  that  Christ  had  ap- 
peared.    Hath  spoken   unto   us— literally. 


'  Kakriaat,  predicate  participle,  not  who  spoke,  6  AaAijaas. 
The  aorist  participle  is  never  in  itself  exactly  equiva- 
lent to  the  perfect.  But  the  Greek  is  fond  of  the  aorist 
form,  and  especially  prefers  the  aorist  participle  to  the 


more  cumbrous  perfect  (compare  AaA^aot  and  A«AoA- 
r)<«ut),  and  the  difference  in  meaning  is  often  not  mate- 
rial. 

B  17 


18 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  I. 


whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom 
also  he  made  the  worlds; 

3  Who   being  the   lirightness  of  his  glory,  and    the 
express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding  all  things 


us  in  I  his  Son,  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things, 

3  through  whom  also  he  made  the  '  world'^ ;  who  being 

the  effulgence  of  his  glory,  and  ^the  very  image  of 

his  substance,  and  upiiolding  all  things  by  the  word 


1  Gr.  a  Son 2  Gr.  ages 3  Or,  the  impreea  o/hi»  tubatance. 


spoke;  but  the  perfect  here  is  more  idiomatic 
English.  The  verb  points  back  to  the  time 
of  the  historic  act.  Observe  that  God  is  the 
common  subject  alike  of  the  participle  ("  hav- 
ing spoken  ")  and  the  verb  ("hath  spoken  "). 
Of  both  Dispensations  God  is  the  author.  He 
instituted  the  first,  and  when  its  purpose  was 
fulfilled  he  removed  it  that  he  might  establish 
the  second.  By  (in)  liis  Son — in  one  who 
was  Son.  In  the  original  the  article  is  omitted 
to  emphasize,  not  the  individual,  but  the  char- 
acter— in  him  who  bears  the  character  o(  Son. 
The  term  here  refers,  I  think,  to  the  historic 
Son  of  God — to  that  thcanthropic  personage, 
who,  of  both  human  and  divine  parentage, 
was  at  once  "Son  of  Man"  and  "Son  of 
God."  See  Luke  1  :  35;  Matt.  3  :  17;  16  : 
16;  John  17  :  1.  That  Christ's  Sonship  in- 
volves essential  equality  with  God  is  certain. 
The  relation  is  grounded  in  his  essential 
and  eternal  nature;  but  more  commonly,  in 
Scripture  the  term  designates  his  historic 
manifestation.  Scripture  certainly  does  not 
lift  the  veil  from  the  mode  of  Christ's  pre- 
historic existence  ;  its  utmost  reach  of  unveil- 
ing is  "  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before 
the  world  was."  Perhaps  the  mystery,  like 
that  of  the  divine  nature  itself,  could  not  be 
made  intelligible  in  human  language,  or  to 
the  finite  understanding.  Whom  he  hath  ap- 
pointed— placed,  appointed,  constituted.  (So 
often  in  the  classics,  as  Herodian,  "Hist."5:  7, 
10;  Xenophon  "Cyropsedia,"  4  :  6,  3;  ^Elian, 
"  Variae  Historiae"  13  :  6.)  This  refers  not  to 
an  appointment  in  God's  eternal  purpose  and 
counsel  (as  Bleek,  Bengel,  Liinemann),  but  to 
his  historical  exaltation  after  his  resurrection. 
(Tholuck,  Ebrard,  De  Wette.Delitzsch,  Moll.) 
The  thought  is  thoroughly  Scriptural.  Christ's 
supreme  authority,  purposed  in  the  eternal 
counsels,  promised  before  his  incarnation 
(Matt.  26:64;  28: 18),  bcstuwcd  at  his  asccnsiou, 
which  he  retains  until  the  Second  Coming, 


when  it  is  enhanced  in  glory,  while  restricted 
in  sphere  (i  Cor.  i5:28),  is  here  A>noted.  The 
term  heiv  {inheritor)  o(  SiW  things  is  selected 
with  reference  to  his  Sonship.  The  Son  in- 
herits his  Father's  dominion,  whicli  is  %mi- 
versal  (all  things).  By  {through)  whom  (Si 
o5).  Christ,  while  essentially  equal,  appears 
subordinate  in  his  working,  to  the  Father, 
He  also  made  (or,  had  made)  the  Avorlds, 
and  might  therefore  properly  appoint  him 
Kuler.  The  present  clause  steps  back  to  find 
in  the  Son's  pre-incarnate  relation  to  the  uni- 
verse a  fitting  reason  for  his  being  now  ap- 
pointed its  Lord.'  Worlds  {aii>va%),  properly 
ages;  hence  worlds  as  existing  in  time,  as 
kosmos  (koct/xos)  is  world  existing  in  space. 

3.  Who  (the  pre-incarnate  Son)  being  from 
eternity  as  the  eternal  Logos,  or  Word,  who 
was  originally  with  God  (John  i :  i) :  the  bright- 
ness— better,  the  effulgence,  raj'ing  forth, 
radiance  (an-aiiyoaMa),  a  rare  Pliilonian  word, 
more  elevated  than  brightness  (Aa/nTrpoTTjs).  It 
is  not  the  abstract  action  of  shining  forth 
(aTrauyoffis),  but  tlic  Concrete  result  oi  the  pro- 
cess, the  radiant  and  abiding  image  or  reflec- 
tion of  the  divine  glory,  implying  at  once 
derivation,  essential  likeness,  and  indejiendent 
existence.^  The  word  is  no  Pauline  word — 
found  only  here  in  the  New  Testament.  But 
the  thought  is  a  Pauline  thought,  for  which 
Paul  uses  image  (t'lKiuy),  and  form,  {uop<i>rj). 
Compare  Col.  1:15;  Phil.  2:6.  And  the 
express  image  of  his  person,  or,  substance. 
'Express  image.'  The  Greek  word  rendered 
express  image  (xopoKT^p,  from  x«P'><''<»'<«>,  sharpen, 
make  pointed,  scratch,  grave)  is,  properly,  the 
person  or  instrument  that  graves,  the  en- 
graver; then  the^^^wre  cut  in,  the  stamp,  tlie 
impress  answering  to  the  die  that  stamps  it. 
Thus,  under  a  different  figure,  the  thought  is 
essentially  the  same  as  above.  There  the 
glory  of  the  Deity  is  a  permanent  raying 
forth,  effulgent  image;  liere  it  is  the  divine 


1  Kcu.  ivoiyitrtv  Toiis  aliovai  is,  therefore,  a  more  appro- 
priate a.s  well  as  better  attested  reading  than  the  (caV  row? 
aiujvai  €noi-qaev,  which  throws  the  emphasis  on  alCiva^. 

*  So  Wisdom  of  Solomon  7  :  26,  whece  it  is  explained 
by  iaonrpov,  mirror,  and  ttKuii',  image;  Philo  "  de  Con- 


cupisc.  Mang."  p.  357,  §  11 ;  "  De  Opif.  Mundi,"  M.  p.  35, 1 
(t^V  fiaKapiat  <^u<rea)9  ixnaytiov  t)  a.n6inTa(Ttia,  tj  airav- 
yo<r(xa,  an  impres.i,  or  effulgence  of  the  Blessed  Nalvre)  ] 
"De  Plantat.  Noe."  M.  1,  337,  where  it  is  equivalent  to 
nifLJiiJLa  and  (tKuc,  the  embodied  imiialion  and  image. 


Ch.  I] 


HEBREWS. 


19 


by  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself 
purged  our  sins,  sat  down  ou  (he  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high ; 

4"  Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he 
bath  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent  name 
than  they. 


of  his  power,  when   he   had   made  purification   of 

sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on 

4  high;   having  become  by  so  much  belter  than   the 

angels,  as  he  hath  inherited  a  more  excellent  name 


essence  stamped  upon  the  Son.'  'Substance' 
(iijTocTToo-is,  a  standing  under,  substantia').  The 
original  word  denotes,  hence  :  (1)  foundation, 
origin;  (2)  substance,  essence;  (3)  ground  of 
trust,  boldness,  confidence — in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  signification  (3)  in  Heb.  3:  14  ;  11:1; 
2  Cor.  9:4.  In  signification  (2)  only  here; 
namely,  substance,  essential  being.  In  the 
sense  of joersort  (persona)  as  marking  the  divine 
tripersonality,  it  belongs  to  later  ecclesiastical 
writers,  not  to  the  New  Testament.  Uphold- 
ing (<&epo>r,  bearing),  partly  passively,  sus- 
taining;  partly  actively,  carrying  forward, 
administering,  all  things— that  is,  the  uni- 
verse. By,  or,  with,  the  word,  the  utterance 
or  mandate  (p^nan,  not  Adyw),  of  his  power 
— the  utterance  in  which  his  power  is  put 
forth;  more  forcible  than  "by  his  powerful 
word."  The  words  express  the  absolute  ease 
with  which  the  Son  eflfects  his  work:  he 
speaks,  and  it  is  done.  The  same  word,  or 
utterance,  which  called  into  existence  the 
universe,  sustains  and  administers  it.  When 
he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins — better. 
After  making  a  cleansing  of  sins.  A  brief 
expression  for  making  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
which  ensured  the  cleansing;  and,  again,  the 
cleansing  of  sins  is  equivalent  to  the  cleansing 
of  persons  from  their  sins.  Tlie  author,  at 
this  early  stage,  introduces  Christ's  high- 
priestly  character;  the  middle  participle 
(meaning,  making  for  himself)  shows  how 
closely  the  sacrificial  act  belonged  to  the 
Son.  "With  the  commencement  of  this  verse 
the  thought  had  receded  from  the  Son's  his- 
toric manifestation  to  his  pre-incarnate  and 
eternal  relation;  the  last  clause  has  stepped 
forward  again  to  the  historical  sphere.  Sat 
down,  or.  Took  his  seat.  See  Ps.  110  :  1. 
The  original  idea  was  that  o?  protection  from. 
an  enemy  (Rev.  12:5),  rather  than  of  honor  and 
sovereignty.     Yet  it  came  to  imply  this,  as 


Matt.  26  :  64,  "sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
power."  The  sitting  marks  calmness  and 
repose;  the  "standing,"  of  Acts  7  :  55,  marks 
activity  and  protection.  At  the  right  hand 
of  Msuesty.  '  Majesty '  for  the  Majestic 
One  (the  abstract  for  the  concrete),  as  at  Matt. 
26  :  64,  'Power'  {T9i<r Swi^L^wi)  for  the  Powerful 
One.  On  high  (literally.  In  the  lofty  heavens) 
belongs  to  took  his  seat  ("took  his  seat  in 
the  lofty  heavens;"  heavens  is  understood, 
as  at  Luke  2  :  14,  "glory  to  God  in  the 
highest  heavens  ").  This  connection  is  shown 
in  the  original  by  the  absence  of  the  article 
(t^s)  before  the  lofty  heavens  (e*'  tois  v^jijiKoU)." 
4.  Becoming,  not,  being  made,  as  in  the 
Common  Version,  nor  "having  become,"  as 
in  the  Revised  Version.  The  meaning  is, 
that  in  thus  taking  his  seat,  he  became,  ctc.» 
So  much  better — that  is,  mightier,  superior 
in  position  and  authority.  Than  the  an- 
gels. Introduced  here  with  reference  to  the 
name  m.essengers,  which  was  derived  from 
their  function.  We  scarcely  need  say  that 
the  language  implies  no  enhancement  of  the 
Son's  intrinsic  excellence,  power,  or  dignity; 
but  only  a  display  or  exercise  of  them  cor- 
responding to  his  nature,  and  to  the  work 
which  he  had  wrought  in  the  great  redemptive 
system.  As  he  hath  by  inheritance  ob- 
tained a  more  excellent  name  than  they. 
He  has  received  by  inheritance  as  Son;  the 
verb  is  adapted  to  the  relation  ;  '  a  more  excel- 
lent name,'  a  name  transcending,  surpassing 
theirs.  Their  name  is  m,essenger ;  /us  name 
is  Son.  'Name'  is  here  equivalent  to  title. 
Hi?  proper  earthly  name  was  "Jesus";  the 
name  of  his  divine  relation  was  "Son,"  which 
was  gloriously  confirmed  when,  by  his  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  he  was  constituted 
"Son  of  God  with  power."  See  Rom.  1  :  4. 
The  name,  or  title,  conferred  upon  him  in  his 
exaltation,  and  to  which  answers  the  "  becom- 


'  \ai>aKrr)(t  in  the  New  Testament  only  here.  Compare 
Philo  "  De  Plantat.  Noe."  M.  1,  p.  332,  where  the  rational 
soul  is  stamped  with  the  seal  of  God,  whose  impress 
(xopatTrip)  is  the  eternal  Word  (ot'Sios  Aoyo?). 

* '  The  Majesty  on  high  '  would  require  x^t  illiyaKorqro'; 
rq?  iv  Toi<:  vifi<Tr]\oi^.  There  are  many  cases  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  the  absence  of  the  article  indicates 


a  different  construction  from  that  of  the  Common  Ver- 
sion. Rom.  8:2,"  in  Christ  Jesus  "  belongs  to  "  made 
me  free  "  (ijAev?€pcj<r«i/). 

s  The  aorist  participle  here,  as  not  unfrequently  else- 
where, though  not  commonly,  is  complementary,  ijce 
John  1 :  14.    The  word  became,  not,  wot  made. 


20 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  I. 


5  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time, 
Thou  art  ray  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee?  And 
again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me 
a  Son? 


5  than  they.    For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at 
any  time. 

Thou  art  my  Son, 

This  day  have  I  begotten  thee? 
and  again, 

I  will  be  to  hini  a  Father, 

And  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son  ? 


ing  SO  much  mightier"  of  our  passage.  The 
name  above  every  name,  of  Phil.  2  :  9-11, 
was  "  Lord."  * 

(2)  Proof  and  illustration  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament of  Christ's  superiority  as  Son  of  God 
to  the  angels.     (5-14.) 

5.  Unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at 
any  time.  An  emphatic  form  of  denial 
equivalent  to  "unto  none,"  and  involving 
an  emphatic  inferential  affirmation  tliat  lie 
did  say  it  to  another.  Thou  art  my  Son. 
Taken  from  Ps.  2  :  7 — one  of  the  most  re- 
markable of  the  Psalms,  and  always  regarded 
as  either  directl}'  or  indirectly  (at  all  events, 
ultimately)  Messianic.  It  points  to  no  event 
in  the  Messiah's  history  so  naturally  as  to 
its  closing  scene,  his  crucifixion,  resurrec- 
tion, and  glorification.  This  suits  the  tenor 
of  the  Psalm,  with  its  banded  foes,  leagued 
against  Jehovah  and  his  anointed;  their  baf- 
fled rage,  and  the  Son,  the  more  immediate 
object  of  the  insurrection,  seated  in  triumph 
above  their  fury  on  the  holy  hill  of  Zion. 
It  evidently  refers  to  the  same  scene,  whether 
real  or  ideal,  typical  or  historical,  as  Ps. 
110:1:  ^'Jehovah  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit 
thou  at  my  right  hand  until  I  make  thine 
enemies  thy  footstool."  The  scene  of  the 
Psalm  is  certainly  not  applicable  to  the  incar- 
nation, but  fits  perfectly  to  the  crucifixion  and 
ascension.  So  the  New  Testament  applies  it 
(Acts  4: 25-28;  13:33)  whcrc  there  is  no  hesitation 
in  referring  our  passage  to  tlie  death  and  res- 
urrection of  Jesus.  To  understand  the  full 
force  of  the  "  my  Son  "  in  such  a  connection, 
we  may  look  at  the  next  citation,  I  will  be 
to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me 
a  Son.  This  is  from  2  Sam.  7  :  14,  where  the 
connection  shows  that,  though  uttered  appar- 
ently of  Solomon,  it  in  reality  applied  to  the 
great  descendant  of  David,  of  whom  David 
himself,  and  Solomon,  and  their  successors, 
are  severally  types,  and  without  whom  to 
close  and  crown  the  succession,  the  royal  line 
of  Judah  was  "as  a  body  without  a  head." 


The  purport  of  the  promise  is  shown  in  the 
angel's  announcement  to  Mary  ( Luke i :  32,33)  : 
"  He  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest, 
and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the 
throne  of  his  father,  David;  and  of  his  king- 
dom there  shall  be  no  end."  The  promise, 
then,  of  2  Sam.  7  :  14  belonged  to  all  the  de- 
scendants of  David  in  their  theocratic  and 
typical  character.  It  belonged  to  them  as 
representing  the  Messiah,  and  was  true  of 
them  in  a  sense  which  applied  to  no  other, 
either  man  or  angel.  The  throne  itself  was 
invested  with  a  new  dignity  and  sacredness: 
around  every  successive  prince  gathered  the 
Messianic  hopes  of  the  nation.  Each  new 
investiture,  with  its  })rerogatives,  inspired 
fresh  expectations;  each  successive  ))rince 
might  be  the  expected  deliverer;  each  coro- 
nation, each  marriage,  each  martial  achieve- 
ment, stood  connected  with  these  national 
hopes,  and  might  call  forth  from  Judah's 
minstrel  some  strain  of  prediction  which  he 
hoped  would  find  fulfillment  in  the  present 
prince,  but  whose  realization  the  inspiring 
Spirit  reserved  to  a  far- distant  day.  Some- 
times the  song  would  pass  beyond  the  prompt- 
ing occasion  to  an  ideal  future,  and  sometimes, 
without  special  immediate  occasion,  it  sprang 
immediately  forward  to  the  glories  of  the 
Messianic  era.  Thus  strains  immediately  and 
exclusively  Messianic,  and  strains  secondarily 
and  typically  so,  would  mingle  themselves  in 
the  Hebrew  minstrelsy.  It  is  most  interesting 
to  see  how  the  great  promise— at  first  attached 
generally  to  the  seed  of  the  woman,  then 
narrowed  to  the  line  of  Abraham — had  now, 
under  this  prediction  of  Nathan,  become 
centered  in  the  line  of  David,  Irom  whose 
descendants,  even  after  the  roj'alty  of  Judah 
was  smitten  to  the  dust,  it  was  unwaveringly 
believed  that  the  Promised  One  would  appear. 
Eeturning  to  our  first  citation  from  the  Sec- 
ond Psalm,  we  see  how  the  author  of  our 
Epistle  could  find  in  it  a  Messianic  signifi- 
cance.    Who  was  its  author  and    what   its 


1  Aiai^opwTcpoi'  ira'p  avroi^.     The  Greek  construction  1  comparison  with  or  beyond  them."    The  simple  con- 
involves  a  double  comparative:   "More  excellent  in  I  struction  would  be, Siai^opioTtpoc  toO  «ic«i>'iu»' (or  ovruf. ) 


Ch.  I] 


HEBREWS. 


21 


6  And  again,  when  he  brinfjeth  in  the  firstbegotten 
into  the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him. 


6  1  And  when  he  again  ^bringeth   the  firstliorii   into 
3  the  world  he  saith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  Ciod 

7  worship  him.     And  of  the  angels  he  saith. 


1  Or,  And  again  when  he  bringeth  in.. 2  Or,  thaU  have  brought  in 3  Or.  the  inhabited  earth. 


immediate  occasion  we  do  not  know.  It 
may  have  sprung  from  some  liistorioal  scene 
in  Jewisli  history',  or  it  may  liave  been,  as  it 
most  probably  was,  primarily  and  directly 
Messianic.  Its  author  may  liave  been  David  ; 
but  I  think  the  lofty  tone  of  its  sentiment, 
and  the  majestic  "thunder  roll"  of  its  style, 
gives  probability  to  Delitzsch's  conjecture, 
which  attributes  its  authorship  to  the  evan- 
gelical prophet,  Isaiah.  In  any  case,  the 
scene  of  the  dramatic  lyric,  whether  primarily 
or  typically  Messianic,  can,  as  Messianic,  be 
laid  only  in  the  time  of  his  ascension.  At 
his  birth  was  no  such  combined  uprising  of 
his  and  God's  enemies  ;  at  his  Second  Coming 
all  his  foes  have  been  long  since  put  under  his 
feet.  The  New  Testament  actually  applies  it 
to  this  period.      Hence,    in   '^to-day   have  I 

•egotteii  thee,^'  "to-day"  is  not  the  'to-day' 
of  eternity;  the  begetting  is  not  spoken  of 
the  Son's  eternal  generation,  or  of  his  essen- 

ial  and  eternal  filial  relation  to  the  Father; 
but  of  that  exaltation  of  Jesus  at  God's  right 
hand,  and  investing  of  him  with  universal 
sovereignty,  which  Paul  calls  (Rom.  i:*)  "con- 
stituting him  Son  of  God  in  power."  In  his 
resurrection  and  ascension  (they  are  virtually 
one),  the  rage  and  hopes  of  his  enemies  had 
been  baffled,  and  his  utmost  pretensions  to 
divine  Sonship  had  been  completely  vindi- 
cated. He  came  into  earth  the  "Son  of 
man";  he  re-ascended  to  heaven  the  declared 
Son  of  God. 

But  his  superiority  to  the  angels  is  to  be 
further  vindicated.  In  his  incarnate  life  his 
glory  was  veiled,  and  he  appears  lower  than 
the  angels.  Their  ministry  to  him  looks  like 
a  ministry  of  compa.«sion,  rather  than  of  ser- 
vice. And  now  his  exaltation  above  them, 
though  real  and  transcendent,  is  outside  the 
sphere  of  his  humiliation,  and  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  inhabited  universe.  He  is  to 
come  again  in  circumstances  which  will  dis- 
play the  relative  position  of  Son  and  angels 
within  our  visible  heavens,  and  in  the  sphere 
of  his  former  humiliation.  The  author,  there- 
fore, adds: 

6.  And  again,  when  he  brin$;eth  in 
(he   firstbegotten    into    the   world,  etc. ; 


we  may  render,  And  when  he  shaii  conduct 
back  again  into  the  iiihabited  world  the 
firstborn.,  he  saith  (proleptic  for  he  will  say). 
And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him.  This  verse  completes  the  picture  of 
Christ's  exaltation  by  pointing  forward  to 
the  glory  of  his  Second  Coming,  when  his 
superiority  to  the  angels  will  be  signally  dis- 
played;  and  forms  a  latent  contrast  to  the 
humiliation  of  his  first  appearance.  His  first 
coming  was  in  lowliness,  and  placed  him  be- 
low the  angels.  His  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion exalted  him,  indeed,  to  transcendent 
glory,  but  it  was  extra-mundane,  and  had  no 
earthly  witnesses.  His  next  coming,  the  author 
exultingly  adds,  in  answer  to  the  lurking  ob- 
jection drawn  from  that  former  humiliation, 
will  be  after  a  different  fashion.  It  will  be 
with  a  retinue  of  adoring  angels,  who  will 
hasten  to  anticipate  the  decree,  'And  let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him.'  It  has  been 
objected  that  if  this  verse  be  understood  of 
Christ's  Second  Coming,  there  must  have  im- 
mediately preceded  a  reference  to  his  first 
entrance,  or  incarnation.  But  of  this  there  is 
no  necessity.  The  first  coming  was  of  so  recent 
occurrence  that  it  may  well  be  assumed  to 
have  been  in  every  one's  mind,  as  the  lurking 
background  to  the  present  contrast.  The  pas- 
sage admits  no  other  reference,  and  in  this 
connection  is  strikingly  pertinent.  As  to  the 
words,  the  position  of '  again  '  {iTakiv)  is  unfortu- 
nate in  the  Common  Version,  making  the 
clause  appear  a  second  quotation  ("And  again, 
when  he  bringeth  in,"  etc.),  thus  throwing 
great  obscurity  over  the  passage  and  iraking 
its  reference  utterly  uncertain,  so  that  Prof. 
Stuart  and  others  would  have  had  excuse  for 
supposing  it  to  refer  to  some  unnamed  event 
in  Hebrew  history.  But  the  original  leaves 
no  ground  of  doubt;  the  'again'  belongs  to 
the  verb  and  points  to  a  second  introduction, 
a  bringing  back  of  the  Son  into  a  realm  he 
had  formerly  visited.  The  verb  "conduct 
into,"  "introduce"  («<ray€ti')  refers  probably 
to  God's  introducing  the  Son  into  the  inherit^ 
ance  that  had  been  settled  upon  him.  and  to 
which  he  is  brought  back,  his  enemies  sub- 
dued, to  take  formal   possession.    The  term 


22 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  I. 


7  And  of  the  angels  he  saith,  Who  raaketb  his  angels 
spirits,  and  his  uiinisters  a  flame  of  fire. 


Who  niaketh  his  angels  winds, 
And  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire: 


'firstbegotten '  {or  firstborn,  ttpuitotokov)  is  an 
elegant  periphrasis  for  Son,  but  used  with 
special  appropriateness  to  liis  present  histori- 
cal relation.  As  the  Father's  eternal  Son, 
dwelling  in  his  bosom  (John  i:  is),  he  was  the 
"only  begotten"  (fiot-oytv^s) ;  as  the  firstborn 
from  the  dead,  the  "first  fruits  of  them  that 
sleep";  the  "firstborn  among  many  bretli- 
ren"  (Rom. 8:29)'.  he  was  the  firstborn,  tlie 
term  implying  heirship  of  all  things,  and  pre- 
eminence over  the  wliole  creation.  (Coi.  i:i5.) 
He  descended  from  heaven  as  the  only  be- 
gotten of  the  Father,  he  reascended  to  it  as 
the  firstborn,  installed,  in  the  world  of  re- 
demption, chief  of  the  creation  of  God.  The 
world  (oLKov ixivri,  inhabited  earth  or  region) 
has  probably  special  reference  here  to  tlie  in- 
habited portion  of  the  universe  in  contrast 
with  that  extra-mundane  realm  into  which 
he  passed  when  he  ascended  "above  all  hea- 
vens" to  the  right  hand  of  God.  His  return, 
led  back  by  the  Father,  with  a  retinue  of 
worshiping  angels,  will  be  to  our  inhabited 
world.  The  citation,  'And  let  all  the  angels 
of  God  worship  him,'  is  either  from  Ps.  97  :  7, 
"  And  let  all  his  angels  worship  him  "  (so  the 
Septuagir.t;  Hebrew,  "Worship  him  all  ye 
Gods");  or  from  the  song  of  Moses  (oeut.  32:43), 
where  we  have  in  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  in  that  copy  of  the  song  which  is 
found  affixed  to  the  Psalter  in  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus,  the  one  generally  employed 
by  our  author,  the  precise  language  of  our 
passage,  "Rejoice,  ye  nations,  with  him,  and 
let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."' 
From  this  the  citation  is  probably  taken,  the 
Septuagint  translators  having  doubtless  found 
the  words  in  their  copy  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
although  they  have  disappeared  from  ours. 

There  may  seem  a  difficulty  in  the  applica- 
tion of  this  passage  to  Christ,  inasmuch  as  the 
song  of  Moses  has  no  declared  reference  to 
the  times  of  the  Messiah.  But  Moses  himself 
was  a  tj'pe  of  Christ.  As  a  prophet,  he  wrote 
and  spoke  of  him  (Luke  21:27;  John  5: 46),  and  in 
fcuch  passages  as  this  song  contains  would  such 
references  be  naturally  found.  In  the  early 
part  of  the  song,  Moses  speaks  of  the  corrup- 
tion and  apostasy  of  the  people  of  God,  then 
of  their  punishment  and  restoration,  when 
God  "will   repent  himself  for  his  servant.?," 


and  visit  judgment  on  these  enemies.  And 
in  view  of  this  he  calis  on  the  heavens  to  re- 
joice, and  the  angels  of  God  to  worship  him. 
But  who  is  to  do  all  this  but  he  who  shall  sit 
on  David's  throne  and  give  to  his  royal  line 
its  everlasting  succession?  And  when  shall 
this  be,  but  when  he  comes  in  the  consum- 
mated majesty  of  his  kingdom?  Rightly, 
therefore,  has  our  author  judged  the  purpose 
of  the  inspiring  Spirit  in  finding  this  applica- 
tion of  the  passage;  and  looking  at  the  whole 
scope  of  the  Old  Testament  no  o;her  interpre- 
tation is  legitimate.  Unless  such  intimations 
of  the  Messiah  are  found  flashing  out  along 
the  Old  Testament  pages,  both  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New  become  an  unsolvable 
enigma.  One  further  remark  against  the  ap- 
plying of  this  passage  to  the  time  of  the  incar- 
nation. The  angels  did  indeed  then  worship 
the  lowly  Messiah,  always  and  everywhere, 
as  an  infant,  as  transfigured,  on  the  cross. 
But  it  was  no  time  to  challenge  their  worship 
of  him.  His  place,  his  work,  was  one  of 
humiliation,  and  their  manifested  worship 
was  occasional  and  sporadic.  They  doubtless 
met  him  behind  the  cloud  which  bore  him 
back  from  earth,  with  all  the  blazing  chivalry 
of  heaven ;  and  with  even  j-et  more  resplend- 
ent pomp  they  will  usher  him  back  when 
God,  his  Father,  conducts  him  back  into  his 
predestined  inheritance. 

7.  Continued  illustration  of  the  difl^eronce 
of  the  two  parties,  drawn  from  their  respect- 
ive names.  And  of  (that  is,  iyi  respect,  indeed, 
to)  the  angels  (messengers)  he  saith — that 
is,  God  saith  in  the  Scripture,  the  utterances  of 
Scripture  being  the  utterances  of  God — Who 
maketh  his  angels  spirits,  etc.;  or,  his  mes- 
sengers winds,  not  'spirits,'  as  in  the  Common 
Version,  and  even  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised 
Version,  but  which  is  here  totally  out  of  place. 
The  angels  are  brought  down,  by  virtue  of 
their  name,  to  a  level  with  the  agencies  of  na- 
ture. It  would  be  no  disparagement  of  them 
to  call  them  'spirits.'  And  his  ministers  a 
flame  of  fire.  The  citation  is  from  Ps.l04  :  4, 
after  the  Septuagint,  except  that  the  Codex 
Vaticanus  (and  probably,  originally,  also  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus;  the  other  reading  being 
apparently  a  correction  from  our  Epistle)  has 
"flaming fire"  (irDp4>A6yox),  insteadof  a  "flame 


Ch.  I.] 


HEBREWS. 


23 


8  But  unto  the  Son  he  suilh.  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for 
ever  and  ever:  a  sceptre  of  righteousness  is  the  sceptre 
of  thy  kiugdoui. 


8  but  of  the  Son  he  sitith, 

Thy  thrcine,  O  (iod,  is  for  ever  and  ever; 
And  the  sceptre  of  uprightness  is  the  sceptre  of 
'  thy  kingdom. 


I  The  two  olde^jt  Greek  luauuscripts  read  hii 


of  fire."  The  Conimon  Version  of  the  Psalm 
reads,  "who  maUeth  his  angels  spirits,  and 
his  ministers  a  flume  of  fire."  The  Hebrew 
original  reads  most  naturally,  according  to 
the  scope  of  the  context,  "  who  maketh  winds 
his  messengers,  and  flaming  fire  (equivalent 
to  lightiiiiKj)  his  ministers."  But  the  double 
accusative  allows  the  construction,  "who 
maketh  his  messengers  winds,  and  his  min- 
isters flaming  fire,"  which  is  the  rendering 
of  the  Septuagint,  only  that  by  placing  the 
article  before  "messengers"  and  "ministers" 
it  shows  that  it  regards  them  as  angels.  This 
rendering  is  adopted  by  our  author  as  pre- 
cisely fitting  his  purpose,  who  also  writes 
"flaming  fire"  for  a  "  flame  of  fire"  (perhaps 
with  reference  to  Exod.  3  :  2).  Delitzsch 
claims,  <in  grammatical  grounds,  that  the 
Septuagint  rendering  is  the  only  right  one, 
and  appeals  to  the  Hebrew  conception,  which 
informed  all  things  with  life,  as  likely  to  min- 
gle the  mention  of  angels  with  that  of  inani- 
mate agencies.  One  might  either  conceive 
these  elemental  powers,  as,  at  the  breath  of 
God,  quickened  into  living  agents  to  do  his 
will,  or  the  living  intelligencies  before  his 
throne,  drawing  on  a  vesture  of  wind  or  fire, 
resolving  themselves  into  apparent  elemental 
forces,  and  flying  off  at  the  divine  mandate 
to  execute  his  purposes.  Not  improbably  the 
author  conceived  the  law-giving  of  Sinai 
(»: 2)  as  thus  accomplished  by  God's  descend- 
ing on  the  mount  in  storm  and  lightning, 
which  may  have  disguised  the  ministry  of 
angels.  Under  any  rendering  the  passage  fits 
our  author's  purpose,  which  is  to  draw  from 
the  angelic  name  of  messenger  the  mark  of 
their  inferiority,  as  they  share  the  name  with 
inanimate  agencies.  Two  properties  in  the 
angels  are  probably  emphasized — their  sub- 
ordinate and  ministerial  position,  and  their 
changeableness,  as  exchanging  their  proper- 


ties with  the  elements  of  nature.  The  word 
'ministers'  (AeiTowpyoi)  is  not  the  familiar  and 
lower  Greek  word  for  "servant"  (as  iiajcofos, 
5oDAo?),  but  the  word  used  in  the  classics  for 
one  who  renders  unrequited  service  (whether 
voluntary  or  involuntary^)  in  the  state,  and 
then,  in  general,  marks  free  and  unselfish 
service.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is  the  standing 
expression  for  priestly  service,  and  so  in  our 
Epistle.  The  ministry  of  the  angels  here 
conceived,  would  be  rendered  in  the  great 
temple  of  the  universe.  They  are  a  leading 
part  of  the  grand  system  of  agencies  by  which 
God  carries  forward  the  administration  of  the 
world. 

8.  Bull  (he  saith)  of  (or,  in  respect  to)  the 
Son.  (Not  'unto,'  asin  theCommou  Version, 
but  of,  in  7'espect  of,  which  the  Greek  prepo- 
sition admits  equally  well  (Luke  12:  41  ;  20:19;  Rom. 
10:21),  and  SO  here  the  rendering  should  follow 
that  of  ver.  7).  He  saith  here,  as  above,  in 
Scripture:  whether  to  the  Son,  or  of  him,  it 
is  not  given  as  the  direct  utterance  of  God  ; 
but,  given  as  of  equal  weight  with  that  direct 
utterance,  it  is  the  author's  attestation  to  the 
divinity  of  the  Scriptures.  (The  correlatives, 
— fteV,  &i — often  used  with  classical  elegance  in 
this  Epistle,  imply  that  the  first  idea  is  intro- 
duced to  prepare  the  way  for,  and  as  a  sort  of 
foil  to,  the  second,  to  which  it  is  subordinate. 
Thus,  "Of  the  angels  indeed"  (=  while  of  the 
angels)  he  uses  such  language,  of  the  Son  he 
employs  the  following:*  Thy  throne,  O 
God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.  The  passage  is 
from  Ps.  45,  apparently  an  epithalamium,  or 
marriage  song,  perhaps  on  the  marriage  of 
Solomon  with  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh ;  or, 
rather  (as  Delitzsch),  of  Joram  with  Athalia, 
sprung,  on  the  mother's  side,  from  the  royal 
family  of  T^^re.  The  minstrel,  in  his  con- 
gratulatory strain,  addresses  in  the  first  part 
of  the  Psalm  (ver. 7,8),  the  bridegroom;  in  the 


•  The  concessive,  lUv,  conceding;,  but  never  emphati- 
cally alfirniing  (except  when  used  in  certain  cases  for 
tt-riv),  has  generally  for  its  correlative  Se,  and  the  two 
answer  to  our  indeed,  to  be  sure,  but,  as  <TO<t>o<;  >ieV, 
KOKOi  it,  wise  indeed,  but  wicked ;  d«Xci  fieV,  ov  irocci  &i, 
be  wilU  itideed,  to  be  sure,  but  doe*  not  do.    In  the  New 


Testament  its  force  is  often  disguised  by  omission  or 
false  translation,  and  in  our  Epistle  it  is  rendered  by 
vfrily,  trull/,  implying  an  eniphaxi.i,  which  it  never  lias. 
The  peculiarity  of  the  particle  consists  in  its  lightness, 
which  often  makes  it  too  delicate  to  be  expressed  in 
English,  except  by  intonation. 


24 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  I. 


9  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  iniquity  ; 
therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows. 


Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  in- 
iquity ; 
Therol'ore  ^  God,  thy  (led,  hath  anointed  thee 
With  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows. 


1  Or,  O  God. 


latter  part,  the  bride.  The  Psalm,  however, 
is  essentially  Messianic,  as  the  poet  addresses 
to  tlie  royal  bridegroom  languasj;e  that  would 
be  intolerably  extravagai.t,  e.\cept  on  the 
assumption  that  in  him  were  to  be  realized 
the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  nation.  Whether 
the  Psalm  was  originally  suggested  by  some 
splendid  marriage  scene,  in  which  the  hope 
of  the  people  regarding  the  great  promise 
blazed  forth  enthusiastically,  or,  which  is  not 
improbable,  was  originally  intended  as  an 
ideal  picture  of  the  future  Deliverer  in  his 
mystical  espousal  of  the  church,  in  either 
case  it  was  Messianic — in  the  latter  case,  pri- 
marily;  in  the  former,  secondarily  so.  Or, 
rather,  in  the  one  case  it  terntinated  but  indi- 
rectly, in  the  other  directly,  on  that  Prince  of 
tlie  house  of  David,  whose  reign  was  to  absorb 
and  crown  the  glories  of  all  preceding  reigns. 
If  an  actual  marriage  festival  called  forth  the 
exulting  strain,  it  might  easily  kindle  the  hope 
that  now  was  conie  the  fulfillment  of  the 
promise.  If  it  did  not  come  now,  the  language 
did  not  fall  to  the  ground  ;  but  as  dealing  with 
a  typical  line,  every  member  of  which  stood 
in  provisional  and  representative  relation  to 
the  Messiah,  it  only  passed  over,  and  received 
from  the  unfoldings  of  history  its  full  import 
and  final  application.  If  it  be  objected  that 
this  is  creating  a  hypothesis  to  meet  the  facts, 
I  answer  that  it  is  the  principle  which  gener- 
ally controls  the  prophetic  utterances  and 
divine  promises  of  Scripture.  In  nearly  all 
cases,  the  recipient  of  the  promise,  or  the 
human  utterer  of  the  prediction,  was  nus- 
taken,  or  at  a  loss  in  regard  to  the  time. 
Prophets  made  it  a  subject  of  study  (i  Peter  i:u), 
and  apostles,  under  the  clearer  light  of  the 
New  Testament,  were  not  allowed  to  measure 
the  limits  of  the  future.  The  Son  himself,  as 
a  human  Seer,  knew  not  the  precise  day  or 
hour  of  his  Second  Coming. 

Messianic,  however,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, this  Psalm  certainly  was;  and  so  was 
interpreted  by  the  rabbis,  and  as  such  held 
its  place  in  the  temple  worsliip.  Apart  from 
this,  its  language  is  impious  or  unmeaning ;  for 
only  to  the  Messiah,  under  God,  could  its  epi- 


thets be  addressed.  As  Messianic,  too,  says  De- 
litzsch,  it  was  referred  to  by  the  prophets  after 
Jehoshaphat.  Isaiah  combines  the  'mighty,' 
of  ver.  4,  and  the  'Elohim,'  of  ver.  6,  in  the 
'mighty  God,'  descriptive  of  the  Anointed 
One  in  Isa.  9:  G;  and  at  61  :  3  makes  the 
"servant  of  Jehovah"  bestow  the  "oil  of 
gladness"  (ver. 7)  for  mourning;  and  Zech. 
12  :  8  declares  that  "  the  house  of  David  shall 
be  as  God,  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord." 

The  passage  is  quoted  from  the  Septiiagint. 
The  original  admits  either  rendering:  "Thy 
throne  is  a  throne  of  God"  (that  is,  a  divine 
throne)  for  ever  and  ever;  or,  "Thy  throne 
of  God  "  (that  is,  thy  divine  throne)  is  for 
ever  and  ever;  or,  'Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for 
ever  and  ever.'  The  latter  Delitzsch  declares 
to  be  perfectly  admissible,  and  Hengstenl:jerg 
to  be  the  only  one  admissible,  and  sustained 
by  all  the  early  versions.  The  passage  brings 
out  the  transcendently  exalted  nature  of  the 
Messiah,  as  against  the  servile  relation  of  the 
angels,  and  his  immutable  and  eternal  being, 
as  against  their  changeableness. 

A  sceptre  of  righteousness  (Greek,  "the 
sceptre  of  rectitude,"  evevTia,  strair/htness, 
Tightness,  uprightness ;  not  'righteousness' 
(SiKaioavvii).  The  word  is  found  only  here  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  repeatedly  in  the 
Septuagint.  See  Ps.  9  :  8  ;  67  :  4,  etc.  Equity, 
rectitude  was  to  be  the  characteristic  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom,  which  might  be  partially, 
though  never  perfectly,  exhibited  by  his  theo- 
cratic representative. 

9.  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and 
hated  iniquity.  The  Hebrew  original  is 
rendered  in  the  Common  Version  "lovest" 
and  "hatest."  The  Septuagint  gave  "didst 
love"  and  "didst  hate,"  which  is  adopted  by 
our  author,  but  to  which  "hast  loved"  and 
"  hast  hated  "  sufficiently  correspond.  In 
the  writer's  conception,  the  time  is  the  Mes- 
siah's earthly  life.  "Iniquity"  {ivoniay,  law- 
lessness) is  the  reading  of  the  Codex  Vati- 
canus  and  most  lesser  MSS  ;  the  Sinaitic  and 
Alexandrian  Codices  read  "unrighteousness"' 
(aSiKiW).  Therefore  God  .  .  .  thy  God.  So 
also  the  Revised  Version.     But  many  scholars 


Ch.  I.] 


HEBREWS. 


25 


\0  And,  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  I  10  And, 
foundationof  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  Thou,   Lord,  in   the   beginning  hast  laid   the 

of  thine  hands.  foundation  of  the  carlh, 

I  And  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy  hands  : 


prefer  to  render,  as  certainly  the  Greek  orig- 
inal allows,  "therefore,  O  God,  thy  God  hath 
anointed  thee,"  etc.,  which  seems  to  me  the 
most  natural  construction,  the  "O  God" 
(o  fled?)  corresponding  to  the  same  word  in  ver. 
8,  and  the  two  identical  words,  in  their  two- 
fold application,  being  brought  into  forcible 
juxtaposition.  We  certainly  need  not  shrink, 
in  either  passage,  from  rendering  "O  God" 
on  account  of  the  thought.  The  author  of 
our  Epistle  certainly  takes  the  Psalm  as  essen- 
tially, probably  as  immediately  Messianic,  and 
thus  as  ascribing  to  the  Anointed  One  the  attri- 
butes of  Deity.  Hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness.  Many  good  inter- 
preters (as  Bleek,  Ebrard,  Alford,  Liine- 
mann),  understand  this  as  the  figurative 
anointing  of  Jesus,  after  his  accomplished 
earthly  career,  as  Heavenly  King,  and  thus, 
of  his  exaltation  above  the  angels;  others  (as 
M()ll,:Kurtz),  laying  the  stress  chiefly  on  the 
gladness,  sink  the  figure  of  the  anointing,  and 
make  it  denote  simply  the  pourmg  out  upon 
him  of  an  overwhelming  fullness  of  blessing. 
The  expression,  'oil  of  gladness'  (or,  exulta- 
tion, rejoicing ;  the  original  word  is  stronger 
than  the  customary  Greek  word  for  joy  or 
gladness),  seems  to  me  decidedly  to  favor  the 
latter  interpretation.  Above  thy  fellows. 
Who  are  these  'fellows'  (fie'roxot),  shai'ers, 
participators?  With  Bleek,  Liinemann,  etc., 
angels  —  but  angels  were  never  fellows  of 
Christ,  either  in  his  pre-existent,  or  incarnate, 
or  post-incarnate  condition  ;  with  Bengel,  all 
men,  as  partakers  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  shar- 
ers of  his  humanity;  with  Delitzsch,  Ebrard, 
Moll,  kings  and  princes  in  general,  with  whom 
Christ  shares  the  kingly  office,  while  exalted 
immeasurably  above  them.  "  I  will  make  him 
my  firstborn,  higher  than  the  kings  of  the 
earth."  (ps.89:27.)  "The  first-begotten  of  the 
dead,  and  the  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the 
earth."  (Rev.  i:5)  Others,  still,  make  them 
Christians,  Christ's  human  brethren,  sharers 
at  once  of  his  human  nature,  and  of  his 
heavenly  anointing  and  divine  Sonship;  he, 
as  firstborn  among  many  brethren,  being  pre- 
eminent among  them.  The  reference  of  the 
Hebrew  bard  would  seem,  most  naturally,  to  be 
to  the  monarch's/e/^ow  princes.     Perhaps  our 


author's  conception  did  not  trace  it  minutely 
— he  is  simply  quoting;  yet  chapter  2  might 
warrant  our  transferring  the  'fellows'  to  his 
Christian  brethren. 

10.  And,  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning 
hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth. 
The  'and'  stands  elliptically  for  and  this  too, 
as  introducing  a  new  quotation,  descriptive  of 
the  majesty  of  the  Son  (ps.  iw :  26-28),  calling 
him  "Lord"  («">«,  the  Septuagint  and  New 
Testament  equivalent  of  Jehovah),  attribut- 
ing to  him  the  work  of  creation  and  affirming 
his  perpetual  abiding,  while  all  created  things 
perish.  The  sentiment  creates  no  difficulty, 
for  such  is  the  uniform  New  Testament  repre- 
sentation of  Christ.  Yet  by  the  term  "  Lord  " 
(xvpte),  found  in  the  Septuagint,  but  wanting 
in  the  Hebrew,  some  have  supposed  the  author 
to  have  been  misled  to  the  applying  of  the 
language  to  the  Messiah.  Yet  such  a  suppo- 
sition is  unnecessary.  The  author  certainly 
makes  no  indiscriminating  application  of  Old 
Testament  passages  to  the  Messiah  ;  and  while 
we  need  not  hold  that  the  Old  Testament 
Scripture  in  speaking  of  God  uniformly  in- 
cludes the  Son,  yet  where  the  language,  as 
here,  points  clearly  to  events  which  can  only 
have  their  complete  fulfillment,  or  indeed 
any  proper  fulfillment,  through  the  Messiah, 
the  Messianic  reference  is  certainly  justified. 
The  Psalm  from  which  this  is  taken  belongs 
to  a  late  period  of  the  exile,  and  deplores, 
along  with  the  writer's  personal  sorrows,  the 
desolations  of  Zion,  and  the  sufferings  of  his 
people.  Yet  her  future  glory  breaks  upon 
him,  and  the  appeal  for  the  certainty  of  this 
is  to  him  who  made  the  earth  and  heavens, 
and  who,  while  they  peri.sh,  will  himself  re- 
main unchangeable,  and  whose  unchange- 
ableness  guarantees  the  permanent  abiding  of 
his  people.  But  this  has  its  accomplishment 
only  in  Christ.  The  Being  who  as  God's  om- 
nipotent Word  made  the  heavens,  whose  breath 
will  sweep  them  away  (John  1  :S;  Rev.  20:n;,  and 
who,  amidst  universal  change,  is  himself  un- 
changeable, is  none  other  than  Clirist.  The 
whole  Psalm,  then,  is  profoundly  Messianic. 
However  dimly  the  Old  Testament  seer  may 
have  recognized  its  deeper  import,  the  New 
Testament  seer,  in  the  triple  light  of  proph- 


26 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  I. 


11  Tliey  shall  perish,  but  thou  remainest:  and  they 
all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment; 

li  And  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up,  and  they 
shall  be  changed :  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years 
shall  not  fail. 

la  But  to  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time,  Sit 
on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  foot- 
stool ? 


11 


12 


They  shall  perish  ;  but  thou  continuest: 
And  t  hey  all  shall  wax  old  as  dot  h  a  garment ; 
And  as  a  mantle  shalt  thou  roll  them  up, 
As  a  garment,  and  they  shall  be  changed: 
But  thou  art  the  same. 
And  thy  years  shall  not  fail. 
13  But  of  which  of  the  angels  hath  he  said  at  any  time, 
Sit  thou  on  luy  right  hand, 
Till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy 
feet? 


ecy,  history,  and  inspiration,  clearly  discerns 
it,  and  applies  to  the  Son  the  language  which, 
according  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, belongs  strictly  to  him,  and  to  him 
alone. 

11.  They  (the  heavens  with  emphasis,  but 
including  doubtless  the  earth)  shall  perish, 
not  of  course  by  annihilation,  but  by  change 
in  their  mode  of  existence.  But  thou  re- 
mainest— continuest  through  all  changes  and 
convulsions.  And  they  all  shall  wax  old 
as  doth  a  §:arment.  Spread  out  {un.M-.Ti)  as 
a  curtain,  they  will  grow  old  and  be  worn 
out. 

12.  And  as  a  vesture  (anything  thrown 
about  one  (n-fpi/SdAaior),  as  a  vail,  a  mantle) 
shalt  thou  fold  them  up'  —  as  a  mantle  is 
rolled  up  and  laid  aside.  And  they  shall  be 
changed — poetic  Hebrew  parallelism.  But 
thou  art  the  same  —  unchanging.  (i3:8.) 
And  thy  years  shall  not  fail— again  poetic 
parallelism,  the  thought  being  essentially  the 
same  as  in  the  preceding  clause. 

13.  But  to  which  (rather,  and  in  respect  to 
which)  of  the  angels.  In  respect  to,  or  of, 
should  here,  as  in  ver.  8,  take  the  place  of 
'to,'  and  and  {S4,  continuative)  is  here  better 
than  'but.'^  Hath  he  said  at  any  time 
(it  is  flpriKtv,  perfect,  hath  said,  not  finev,  did 
say,  as  in  ver.  5).  The  perfect  exhibits  the 
saying  as  standing  before  hs  in  its  continuous 
result.  Sit  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool.  From  Ps. 
110 :  1,  a  psalm  perhaps  doubtful,  whether 
primarily  or  typically  Messianic.  It  may 
possibly  have  originated  in  some  historical 
incident,  as  some  victory  of  David  (or  one  of 
his  successors)  over  his  enemies,  which  had 
established  anew  his  throne  upon  Mount  Zion. 
Under  the  influence  of  such  a  triumph  there 
is  opened  to  David  a  vision  of  the  higher  ex- 
altation, at  once  royal  and  priestly,  of  his  Son 


and  Lord.  And  if  it  started  as  typical,  it 
passes  over  into  a  directly  Messianic  charac- 
ter. This  is  attested  by  the  nature  of  the 
Psalm  itself,  as  (1)  the  Theocratic  King,  rul- 
ing on  Mount  Zion,  might  be  properly  said  to 
be  enthroned  beside  Jehovah,  but  scarcely  at 
his  right  hand,  which  implies  transcendent 
honor  (see  ver.  3);  and  (2)  the  permanent 
priestly  functions  of  Melchisedek  could  be 
ascribed  neither  to  David,  nor  to  any  of  his 
successors.  And  again,  (3)  our  Lord  himself 
(Matt.  22:42.15)  makcs  it  a  direct  address  by  Da- 
vid to  his  Son  and  Lord.  The  words,  "in 
Spirit  call  him"  add  weight  to  the  interpreta- 
tion (as  showing  very  clearly  how  our  Lord 
regarded  it),  and  are  probably  suggested  by 
the  Hebrew  word  of  the  Psalm  (D>5J),  which 
puts  it  into  the  categor3'^  of  a  prophecy.  (See 
Acts  2:34,  35.)  The  military  tone  of  the 
Psalm  may  be  the  echo  of  the  recent  signal 
victory,  and  is  in  harmony  with  many  repre- 
sentations of  the  Messiah.  Compare  Ps.  2:9; 
45  :  3-5 ;  Eev.  6:2.  '  On  '  {out  of—ix,  equiva- 
lent to  close  upon)  *  my  right  hand,'  which  is 
always  the  side  of  honor.  'Until  I  make'  (or, 
shall  have  made)  thine  enemies  thy  foootstool, 
referring  to  the  Oriental  custom  of  putting 
the  foot  on  the  neck  of  conquered  enemies, 
(josii.  10:24;  1  Kings  5:17.)  Looking,  then,  at  the 
extraordinary'  language  of  this  Psalm  itself, 
at  the  almost  una.nimous  interpretation  of  the 
Synagogue,  certainly  in  New  Testament 
times,  and  the  probable  references  to  it  in  the 
later  prophets  (as  Dan.  7:13;  Jer.  23:5; 
Zech.  6  :  12,  13),  we  are  authorized  in  break- 
ing away,  in  our  interpretation,  from  all  local 
and  temporal  limitations,  and  referring  the 
Psalm,  in  its  origin  under  the  inspiring  Spirit, 
directly  to  Christ.  Indeed,  I  doubt  if,  with 
the  exception  possibly  of  the  Second,  there  is 
another  Psalm  in  the  whole  collection  so 
purely   Messianic.     As  such,  it  declares  his 


iSo  the  Sinaitic  and  the  Alexandrian  Codices.  The 
Vatican  Codex  reads  aAAafcit,  shalt  change,  after  the 
Hebrew  original. 

*Ae'  almost  as  frequently  admits  of  the  rendering 


'and 'as  'but,' the  slight  contrast!  ve  force  being  too 
weak  to  beexpressed  in  Engli.sh.  The  Revised  Version, 
I  think,  is  occasionally  unfortunate  in  preferring  '  but ' 
to '  and.' 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


27 


14  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  |  14  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits 
iiuister  for  ihem  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation?  do  service  for  the  sake  of  tUem  who 

salvation? 


,  sent  forth  to 
lio  shull   inlierit 


CHAPTER  II. 


THEREFORE  we  ought  to  give  the  more  earnest  heed 
to  the  things  which  we  have  heard,  lest  at  any  time 
we  should  let  t/ttin  slip. 


1      Therefore  we  ought  to  give  the  more  earnest  heed  to 
the  things  that  were  heard,  lest  hai)ly  we  drift  away 


united  kingly  and  priestly  character,  the  re- 
sistless march  of  his  empire,  and,  by  implica- 
tion, as  sharing  tlie  throne  of  Jehovah,  his 
supreme  divinity.  With  his  eternal  kingship 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  we  find  also  united 
his  eternal  priesthood  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chisedek.  The  priestly  dignity  finds  its  rest 
and  support  in  his  eternal  being  and  kingly 
exaltation.  Thus  Christ  enjoys  a  prerogative 
unknown  to  men  (except  as  represented  in 
him),  and  utterly  foreign  to  angels.  They 
bow  before  the  throne  of  Jehovah,  encompass 
it  with  adoring  homage,  hasten  abroad  as  the 
glad  messengers  of  its  will,  but  not  the  loftiest 
of  them  dreams  of  aspiring  to  the  transcend- 
ent dignity  of  a  partner  of  the  throne  of  the 
Infinite. 

14,  The  proper  functions  of  angels  as  mes- 
sengers, in  contrast  with  the  lofty  position  of 
the  Son.  Are  they  not  all.  'AH'  (rai-T*?) 
placed  here  emphatically  in  advance — all 
without  exception,  even  the  highest  of  them. 
Their  verj'^  na^ne  pledges  them  to  this.  Minis- 
tering spirits— with  reference  to  ver.  7.  But 
here  there  is  no  purpose  of  disparagement, 
and  the  terms  are  used  in  their  utmost  dig- 
nity. The  angels  render  public  and,  as  it 
were,  priestly  service  in  the  divine  economy; 
there  is  no  reference  to  the  heavenly  sanct- 
uary. 'Spirits' — here  the  angels  take  their 
proper  designation  (the  nvfvti.ara  are  'spirits,' 
not  '  winds,'  as  at  ver.  7).  The  emphasis  is  on 
'ministering.'  Sent  forth — present  contin- 
ued participle  (an-o<rTcAAdjU€»'a,  habitually  ^  Sent 
forth') — to  minister,  for  rendering  service 
(not  the  elevated  word  used  above,  but  the 
ordinary  Greek  word  (SiaKovU)  for  helpful  ser- 
vice; whether  the  'service'  here  is  conceived 
as  rendered  also  to  God,  for  the  benefit  of  his 
people  (as  Delitzsch,  Liinemann,  Lange),  as 
the  structure  of  the  sentence  would  seem  to 
imply'  (they  are  God's  ministers  for) ;  or  goes 
with  the  following — thus:  service  for  the  sake 
of  (as   Kurtz),  cannot  perhaps  be  certainly  I 


determined.  At  all  events,  the  subordinate 
ministry  is  to  God  ;  the  service  is  for  them 
who  shall  be  heirs,  or,  for  the  sake  of  them 
that  are  to  inherit  salvation.  The  Scrip- 
tures abound  in  records  of  these  angelic  min- 
istrations; the  service  may  assume  many 
forms,  but  it  is  primarily  for  the  heirs  of  spir- 
itual salvation,  not  conferred  by  the  angels, 
but  inherited  as  sons  of  God  and  brethren  of 
Christ  (2:10,12:  Rom.  8:29),  and  as  such  minis- 
tered to,  waited  upon,  by  the  angels. 

I  think  we  have  a  right  to  assume,  apart 
from  the  question  of  inspiration,  that  the  Mes- 
sianic application  of  the  Psalms  and  other  Old 
Testament  passages  in  this  chapter  have  not 
been  made  by  our  author  carelessly  and  with- 
out adequate  ground.  A  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  in  question  points,  I 
think,  decisively  in  this  direction;  and  the 
entire  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  in  this 
Epistle  shows  a  profound  and  far-seeing  and 
sagacious  study  of  these  older  Scriptures ;  and 
if  the  author  of  the  Epistle  was  Apollos  (to 
whose  authorship  the  best  modern  criticism  is 
rapidly  converging),  the  whole  Epistle  is  a 
striking  commentary  on  the  description  of 
him  as  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  fully  vin- 
dicating and  explaining  it.  The  manner  of 
handling  the  Scriptures  is  as  remote  as  is  the 
style  from  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  while  in 
all  fundamental  views  they  are  perfectly  at 
one.  That  Paul  was  the  wider,  deeper  gen- 
eral thinker;  that  our  author  had  been  a 
closer  Old  Testament  student,  I  see  no  reason 
to  doubt. 

Ch.  2.  (3)  Brief  exhortation  to  heed  a  reve- 
lation made  by  so  extraordinary  a  personage. 
By  as  much  as  the  Son  is  superior  to  the 
angels  by  so  much  greater  the  peril  of  disobey- 
ing his  message  than  theirs.     (1-4.) 

1.  Therefore  (for  this  reason)  we  on^ht, 
or  must;  yet  a  logical,  not  a  natural  or  monil 
necessity'.    The  author  has  through  the  whole 


1  As  serraDts  4io,  on  account  of,  for  the  sake  a/,  the  iia  implying  the  purpose  of  the  service. 


28 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


2  For  if  the  word  spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  and 
every  transgression  and  disobedience  received  a  just 
recompense  of  reward  : 

3  How  siiall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salva- 


2  from.  them.    For  if  the  word  spoken  through  angels 
proved  stedfast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobe- 

3  dience  received  a  just  reconii>ense  of  reward;   how 
shall  we  escape,  if  we   neglect  so  great  salvation? 


Epistle  a  practical  end  in  view,  of  which  he 
never  loses  sight,  to  call  back  to  the  Christian 
faith  those  who  were  relapsing  to  Judaism. 
To  give  the  more  earnest  heed  to  the 
things  which  we  have  heard  —  literallj', 
the.  things  luhich  were  heard  when  God  spoke 
to  us  through  his  Son.'  The  gospel  revelation 
is  called  collectively  the  things  which  we 
have  heard  as  corresponding  to  the  speaking 
of  the  Son,  in  whose  speaking  are  comprised 
the  New  Testament  revelations.  At  12  :  18, 
et  seq.,  tiie  author,  changing  his  representa- 
tion, brings  the  spiritual  Israel  to  the  foot  of 
the  heavenly  Zion  (as  the  temporal  Israel  had 
come  to  the  earthly  Sinai),  represents  God  as 
now  speaking  (\a\ovvTa)  from  heaven,  as  he 
then  spake  on  earth  ;  that  earthly  'speaking' 
was  from  Sinai.  Lest  at  any  time  we 
should  let  them  slip — rather,  lest  perchance 
we  drift  by  or  away  froin  them,  as  a  stream 
flows  by,  or  a  vessel  drifts  by  or  aside  upon  a 
stream.  '  Drift  by  or  away  from,'  not  so  as  to 
lose  the  recollection  (a  meaning  too  weak  for 
the  connection),  but  so  as  to  fail  of  the  salva- 
tion which  they  proffer.^ 

3.  For  —  ground  of  the  exhortation  just 
given — if  the  word  spoken  by  (through) 
angels — so  immeasurably  inferior  to  the  Son 
— was  steadfast,  proved  abiding.  '  The  word 
spoken  through  angels';  the  law  given  on 
Sinai,  assumed  to  have  been  given  by  the 
ministry  of  angels.  In  the  account  of  the 
legislation  of  Sinai  in  Exodus,  there  is  no 
mention  of  angels.  But  the  song  of  Moses 
(Deut. .33:2),  whcrc  God  is  Said  to  have  come 
forth  with  myriads  of  his  holy  ones  (Septua- 
gint,  "angels"),  and  Psalm  68:  17,  where  God 
appears  in  Sinai  among  thousands  of  angels, 
might  justify  the  current  tradition  of  the  syn- 
agogue tliat  the  law  was  promulgated  through 
angels.  So  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  7:53) : 
ye  "received  the  law  by  the  dispensation  of 
angels";  and  (Gai. 3:19)  ^'^ by  being  ministered 


through  angels.^'  To  this  testimony  add  our 
own  passage.  So  Herod,  in  Josephus  ("An- 
tiquities," XV  ;  5.  3):  "Having  learned  the 
holiest  things  in  our  law  through  angels  from 
God."  ^Proved,  abiding,  valid,^  so  that  its 
authority  was  upheld,  and  its  violation  pun- 
ished. And  every  transgression  and  dis- 
obedience—  a  descending  climax:  trans- 
gression (irapajSao-is),  a  going  beyond,  or  aside 
from,  a  positive  overstepping  of  the  law; 
'  disobedience '  (n-apaicoij),  disregard,  refusal  to 
hear.  The  one,  false  or  perverse  going;  the 
other,  false  or  perverse  hearing;  the  latter  a 
more  subtle,  less  palpable  violation  of  the 
law;  but  both  equally  punished,  alike  the 
acting  in  violation,  and  the  refusal  to  give 
heed  to  it.  Received  a  just  [righteous,  right- 
ful, eVSticov  Rom.  3 :8)  recompense  of  reward. 
Strictly,  rendering  of  revjard.  All  know  how 
striotlj'  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  adhered  to; 
its  claims  were  inexorable. 

3.  How  shall  we  escape.  'We'  em- 
phatic; who  have  been  taught  by  one  so  in- 
finitely superior.  'Escape,'  used  absolutelj', 
as  at  12  :  25;  1  Thess.  5  :  3,  for  escaping  the 
judgment  of  God  and  final  condemnation. 
"And  thinkest  thou,  O  man?"  (Rom. 2:3.)  If 
we  neglect  (after  neglecting)  so  great 
salvation.  The  argument  still  drawn  from 
the  greatness  of  its  author,  though  including, 
as  shown  by  its  description  as  salvation,  its 
intrinsic  superiority.  The  words  "s©  great," 
as  this  must  be  and  is;  the  "  so  great "  does 
not  look  forward  to  the  following  description. 
The  following  clause  is  added  to  explicate 
and  enforce  the  idea.  The  dillerence  is 
already  implied  in  the  words  employed  to  de- 
note the  respective  communications.  The 
revelation  through  angels  is  marked  by  the 
general  term  'word';  its  special  nature  is 
not  indicated ;  if  it  had  been  it  must  have 
pointed  to  wrath.  That  made  through  the 
Son   is  specifically  a  salvation.      The  writer 


1  The  Greek  aorist  (light  and  flexible  in  its  use) 
throws  back  the  action  to  the  time  when  God  spoke  in 
bis  Son.  In  this  case,  as  often,  the  English  perfect  is 
not  objectionable. 

2  So  Clemens  Alexandrinus:  "To  flow  aside  from,  to 
lose  hold  of  the   truth''    (Trapappu^vai    T^s   aAji9<ias). 


With  substantial  correctness  Theodore  of  IMopsuestia : 
"  Lest  perchance  we  receive  a  diversion,  a  turning  aside 
from  the  belter  things  "  (/mjiroTe  TropaTpoTT-jji'  nva  aito  rStv 
KpeiTToviDV  £ef  uj;Ltc0a.  Ilesychius  ;  «'{ oAiaflui/xev,  slip,  slido 
away. 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


29 


tion ;  which  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord, 
and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard  him ; 

4  God  also  bearing  Ihein  witness,  both  with  signs  and 
■wonders,  and  u  ith  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  according  to  his  own  will? 


which  having  at  the  first  been  spoken  through  the 
I,ord,  was  confirmed  unto  us  l)y  those  who  heard; 
4  God  also  bearing  witness  with  them,  both  by  signs 
and  wonders,  and  by  manifold  powers, and  by  'gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  his  own  will. 


I  Gr.  (attribution: 


thus  suggests  a  double  criminality  and  peril 
in  neglecting  the  message  of  the  Lord;  first, 
f'rotn  the  aiigustncss  of  its  source,  the  Son; 
second,  from  its  intrinsic  nature  as  a  'salva- 
tion,' the  neglect  of  which  leaves  them  to  the 
ruin  from  which  it  proffers  them  deliverance. 
On  both  grounds  the  'how' is  equivalent  to 
an  emphatic  negative.  Which  at  the  first 
began*  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord.  The 
high  prerogative  of  this  salvation  is  that  its 
original  announcement  was  not  through 
angels,  but  the  Lord  (the  naine  which  is 
above  every  name).  Both  the  dispensations 
are  ultimately  alike  from  God,  but  neither 
from  him  directly;  and  their  relative  excel- 
lence may  be  inferred  from  the  dignity  of 
their  respective  mediators.  In  giving  the  law 
God  employed  angels,  in  giving  the  gospel, 
his  Son;  in  the  one,  servants;  in  the  other, 
the  Lord.  The  beginning,  then,  is  here  not  the 
ultimate,  but  the  historical  origin  of  the  two 
dispensations.  "  The  Lord  "  is  here,  as  often, 
used  absolutely.  It  is  the  Septuagint  and  New 
Testament  equivalent,  sometimes  of  Jehovah, 
sometimes  of  Adonai.  And  was  confirmed 
(transmitted  with  firm  and  reliable  testimony, 
placed  beyond  all  doubt)  unto  (or,  for)  us — 
tiie  succeeding  generations.  By  them  that 
heard  him  (or,  that  heard  it,  that  is,  from 
him).  It  came  to  us  from  immediate»eye  and 
ear  witnesses,  the  personal  followers  of  .Jesus. 
The  writer  classes  himself  with  his  readers  as 
those  who  received  the  gospel  at  second-hand. 
This  of  itself  would  decide  the  authorship  of 
the  Epistle  as  non-Pauline.  Paul  claims  uni- 
fnrmly  and  positively  to  "  have  seen  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  to  have  received  both  his  com- 
mission and  his  doctrine  from  the  revelation 
of  .Jesus  Christ  (Gai. i :  12;  2:4),  and  admits  no 
dependence  on,  or  inferiority  to,  the  other 
Apostles  (1  Cor.  15:10;  2Cor.  11 : 5).  It  is  incredible 
that  when  opposing  Judaising  teachers  and 
tendencies,  he  should  so  strenuously  vindicate 
his  apostolical  prerogatives,  and  here  so  ut- 
terly ignore  them.      We  certainly  have  not 


here  the  always  lofty,  though  never  arrogant, 
tone  of  the  apnstle  to  the  Gentiles. 

4.  But  the  testimony  of  these  disciples  did 
not  stand  alone — God  also  bearing  them 
witness  (God  along  with  them  bearing  added 
witness).  To  the  testimony  of  their  words  he 
added  that  of  supernatural  deeds,  wrought 
through  their  hands.  Both  with  signs  and 
wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles.  The 
words  denote  the  same  thing  under  different 
points  of  view;  they  are  'signs,'  or  proof s,  as 
confirming  the  genuineness  of  the  messenger 
or  message;  'wonders,'  or  portents,  as  trans- 
cending tiie  ordinary  course  of  nature ;  '  mir- 
acles ' — strictly,  acts  of  power,  mighty  works, 
as  wrought  by  divine  power.  Miracles  con- 
firmed the  divine  mission  of  our  Lord  and  the 
divine  origin  of  the  infant  church.  Powers 
(iui/o/iieis)  is  the  name  of  a  special  charisma 
(1  cor.i2:28),  probably  the  working  of  miracles; 
here  the  reference  is  probably  to  the  general 
workingof  miracles  by  the  apostles.  (Acts2:43.) 
And  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost — impartings 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
genitive  of  the  object,  not  of  the  subject ;  dis- 
tributions, bestowments  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
According  to  his  own  will — that  is,  accord- 
ing to  God's  will.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  sent  by 
Christ  or  the  Father,  as  the  fruit  of  Christ's  as- 
cension (John  16:7,8;  Eph.  4:7;  Act3  2:  38),  "  who  be- 
ing by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted."  The 
Spirit  sent  of  God,  with  almighty  agency, 
ministered  those  various  gifts,  as  prophecy, 
miraculous  healings,  speaking  with  tongues. 
From  another  point  of  view,  bestowed  by 
the  sovereign  pleasure  of  the  Spirit,  who 
acts  freely,  though  subordinately.  'Accord- 
ing to  his  own  will.'  They  could  not  be 
taken  at  the  option  of  the  individual,  and 
were  legitimate  objects  of  desire  and  praj'er 
(1  Cor.  i2-.il;  14: 13);  and  while God  imparted  them 
as  he  would,  doubtless  in  the  church  they  were 
bestowed  according  to  special  exigencies  and 
peculiar  individual  endowments.  All  these 
are  "powers  of  the  world  ta come."     (« : s ) 


1  '  First  beg.an  '—literally,  fo  take  a  beginning  :  ap\r)v  Kafitlv,  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in 
Philo,  "  Vita  Moses,"  i,  614,  E. 


30 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


5  For  unto  the  angels  hath  he  not  put  in  subjection 
the  world  to  come,  whereof  we  speak. 


For  not  unto  angels  did  he  subject  'the  world  to 


1  Gr.  the  inhabited  earth. 


Thus  t'loses  this  first  hortatory  passage.  Each 
of  tlie  three  grand  argumentative  sections  of 
the  Epistle  (see  Analysis)  contains  such  a  hor- 
tatory passage,  being  successively  longer  and 
more  cogent,  as  the  argument  deepens  in 
intensity.  This  is  naturally  the  shorter  of  the 
ttiree,  yet  in  this  is  cogently  put  the  peril  of 
disregarding  the  salvation  brought  by  the 
Lord,  and  implied  that  the  readers  are  in 
danger  of  disregarding  it. 

(4)  Christ,  though  as  Son  infinitely  superior 
to  the  angels,  yet  was  humbled  temporarily 
below  them,  thaty  suffering  and  dying  as 
man,  he  might  rescue  and  elevate  his  htiman 
brethren,  and,  as  a  faithful  High  Priest,  rec- 
oncile thetn  to  God.     (5-18.) 

5.  For  unto  the  angels  hath  he  not 
(For  not  unto  angels  did  he)  put  in  subjec- 
tion the  world  to  come  (or,  the  coming  age) 
whereof  we  speak  (are  speaking).  The 
practical  passage  just  closed  leads  to  a  new 
stage  in  the  discussion.  It  has  presented  the 
Son  of  God  as  the  Son  of  man,  as  the  Bearer 
of  salvation,  first  publishing  it  in  his  own 
person,  and  then  carrjnng  it  forward  by  di- 
vinely commissioned  and  divinely  equipped 
human  agents.  The  world  of  redemption 
ojiens  upon  our  view,  that  'future  world,' 
which,  with  all  its  spiritual  powers,  its  preg- 
nant hopes,  its  accomplished  salvation,  had 
been  the  theme  of  prophecy,  and  the  expecta- 
tion of  Israel.  This  also  has  been  placed 
under  the  government  of  the  Son.  He  has 
been  exalted  as  its  Supreme  Head;  but  no 
longer  as  the  absolute  Son  of  God,  the  Eternal 
Logos,  the  Creator  and  Sustainerof  the  uni- 
verse, but  as  the  Son  of  man,  raised,  in  his 
human  nature,  above  every  name  that  is 
named,  and  crowned  with  glory  and  honor. 
This  topic  then  subserves  a  double  purpose: 
it  illustrates  Christ's  super-angelic  dignity, 
and  it  opens  the  way,  by  an  easy  transition,  to 
the  fact  so  offensive  to  every  Jewish  mind,  of 
Christ's  humiliation  and  death  on  the  cross. 
"Why  did  he  who  was  exalted  infinitel3'  above 
the  angels  appear  far  below  them?  It  was  to 
restore  to  man  his  pristine  and  normal  dignity, 
to  bring  universal  humanity  into  new  relations 
to  God,  and,  by  an  expiatory  death,  to  become 
qualified  to  lead  unnumbered  sons  of  (Jod  to 


glory.  Under  this  view,  the  course  of  thought 
of  the  following  verses  will  be  clear.  'For' 
refers  not  (with  De  Wette)  back  to  1  :  14,  nor 
(with  Delitzsch)  does  it  merely  take  up  and 
carrj'  forward  the  general  thought  of  the  fore- 
going passage,  but  (with  Moll  and  Kurtz) 
enforces  the  exhortation  to  give  heed  to  the 
things  which  have  been  heard,  and  not  neglect 
the  Messianic  salvation,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not 
to  angels,  but  to  the  Son— not  now  the  Son  of 
God,  but  the  Son  of  man — that  this  coming 
age,  this  world  to  be,  lias  been  placed  in  sub- 
jection* The  Old  Testament  law  was  given 
through  angels;  the  New  Testament  salvation 
was  brought  through  Christ.  There  may, 
perhaps,  be  also  a  reference  to  the  Jewish  con- 
ception that  the  several  departments  of  the 
world  were  under  the  guardianship  of  angels; 
though  this  was  true  but  of  heathen  nations 
and  princes  (see  Deut.  32  :  8,  Septuagint;  Dan. 
4  :  13),  while  the  Jews  are  under  immediate 
divine  guidance.  But  at  all  events,  angels, 
except  as  mere  ministers,  retire  from  the  scene, 
and  nia7i,  glorified  and  ideal  in  the  person  of 
his  Representative,  fills  the  foreground  of  the 
picture.  Most  beautifully  approjjriate  becomes 
the  following  citation,  which  connects  Christ's 
humiliation  with  his  exaltation,  and  this  again 
with  the  restoration  of  humanity  to  its  ideal 
position:  'Not  unto  angels  did  he  put  in 
subjection.'  Angels  placed  emphatically  in 
advance,  and  without  the  article,  to  emphasize 
not  the  individuals,  but  the  class.  '  Put  in 
subjection'  might  easily  be  suggested  by  the 
just  enumerated  tokens  of  power  that  marked 
the  Messianic  era,  and  also  by  that  coming 
passage  from  the  Psalms,  which  the  writer 
already  has  in  his  mind,  'The  world  to  come' 
— the  world  to  be,  the  future,  or  coming  world ; 
here,  not  the  ''age  to  come,"  but  the  concrete 
inhabited  (oiicou/neVrji')  world  (a.iin  1 : 6),  the  world 
created  good,  and  laid  under  the  curse  of  sin 
and  death,  and  now  to  be  filled  with  the  bless- 
ings of  redemption  ;  a  world  already  existing  in 
its  spiritual  agencies,  but  demanding  for  its  full 
development  of  blessedness  a  new  heaven  and 
a  new  earth.  The  full  gospel  salvation,  "the 
city  that  hath  foundations,"  is  through  this 
Epistle  (as  everywhere  with  Paul)  still  in  the 
future.     As  the  "future  age,"   it  consists  of 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


31 


6  But  one  in  a  certain  place  testified,  saying,  What  is 
man,  Ibat  ttioii  art  mindful  of  him?  or  the  sun  of  uian, 
that  thou  visitesl  him? 

7  Thou  niadest  hiui  a  little  lower  than  the  angels; 
thou  crownedst  him  with  glory  and  honour,  and  didst 
set  him  over  the  works  of  thy  hands: 


6  come,  whereof  we  spcik.    But  one  hath  soiuewhere 
testihed,  saying, 

What  is  man   that  Ihou  art  mindful  of  him? 
Or  the  son  of  man,  that  thou  visiti'st  him? 

7  Thou  madest  him  '  a  little  lower  than  the  angels; 
Thou  crowneilst  him  with  glory  and  honour, 

2  And  didst  set  him  over  the  works  of  thy  hands: 


I  Or. /or  a  Utile  white  lower 'J  Many  authorities  oiiiit  And  didat 


the  brief  ante-resurrcction  period  and  the 
infinite  beyond;  as  tiie  'coming  world,'  it 
consi.sts  of  the  thi'eshold  of  the  temple  and 
the  infinite  temple.  'Whereof  we  are  speak- 
ing'— referring,  probably,  not  to  tlie  entire 
scope  of  the  Epistle,  but  to  this  particular 
section  of  it. 

6.  With  the  declaration  'not  unto  the 
angels,'  etc.,  the  author  had  doubtless  in 
mind,  "but  unto  the  Son,"  or  "unto  the  Son 
of  man,"  or  some  such  expression.  But  hav- 
ing in  mind  the  passage  in  the  Psalm,  from 
which  he  was  to  draw  his  illustration,  he  over- 
les'.ps  the  intermediate  step,  and  lets  the  cita- 
tion, which  virtually  involves  the  contrasted 
statement,  take  the  place  of  the  statement  it- 
self.' But  one  in  a  certain  place  (some- 
where) testified,  etc.  'But'  (Se)  is  here 
slightly  adversative,  as  introducing  over 
against  the  negative  statement  that  it  is  not 
angels  to  whom  the  world  of  salvation  was 
subjected,  the  counter  and  positive  doctrine 
that  it  is  mcai,  and  especially  as  idealized 
and  represented  in  the  Son  of  man,  the 
Messiah.  The  citation  is  from  Ps.  8  :  4-6. 
The  words  'some  one,'  'somewhere,'  do  not 
imply  ignorance  or  doubt  of  the  authorship 
or  locality  of  the  passage.  The  accuracy  of 
the  citation  shows  that  it  is  not  from  mem- 
oi'y,  and  a  like  'somewhere'  occurs  at  4:4, 
concerning  a  passage  regarding  which  there 
could  be  no  doubt.  The  use  of  the  words  is 
purely  rhetorical.  The  half  mysterious  mode 
of  citation  lends  a  certain  dignity  and  ele- 
gance to  the  style,  and  while  withholding  the 
name  of  the  author,  leaves  the  attention  fixed 
on  the  passage.^  Liinemann  notices  a  similar 
reticence  in  Philo. 
The  passage  here  introduced  is  felicitously 


selected  as  pointing  to  the  ideal  character  and 
natural  destination  of  humanity,  that  it  may 
be  therein  shown  howtiieseare  realized  in  the 
glorified  Jesus,  and  that,  too,  on  behalf  of 
humanity,  and  thus  be  explained  the  enigma 
of  his  humiliation. 

What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of 
him?  or  the  Son  of  man,  that  thou  vis« 
itest  him  ?  Better,  perhaps,  a  7nan  and  a 
Son  of  man.  The  second  clause  is  a  mere 
poetical  pai'alle!  of  the  fii'st.  The  theme  of 
the  Psalm  (8)  is  the  dignity  of  humanity  and 
its  exaltation  above  all  inanimate  nature  on 
the  gi'ound  of  the  utterance  in  Gen.  1  :  26,  28, 
of  man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God,  and  his 
investiture  with  the  lordship  of  this  lower 
ci'eation.  The  introduction  of  the  Psalm 
points,  as  against  the  glory  and  magnificence 
of  the  heavens,  to  that  littleness  and  apparent 
insignificance  of  man,  which  only  makes  more 
wonderful  his  moral  elevation,  and  his  rule 
over  this  wide  creation. s  Whether  our  author 
introduces  tlie  Psalm  primarily  in  its  earthly 
and  natural  charat  ter  (as  Delitzscli,  Moll),  or 
as  immediately  Messianic  (as  Bleek,  Liine- 
mann, Kui-tz),  I  shall  consider  by-and-by. 
But  having  directed  attention  to  man's  little- 
ness, he  proceeds  to  declare  his  loftiness, 

7.  Thou  madest  him  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels.  The  author  quotes  fi'om  the 
Se])tuagint:  ^^  Thou  didst  lower  him  some  little 
below  (in  comparison  with)  angels."  The 
Hebrew  original  reads:  "Thou  didst  lower 
him  some  little  below  Elohim,"  which  with- 
out the  ai-ticle  may  very  properly  be  rendered 
angels  (instead  of  God),  as  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Targumists  and  modern  scholars; 
and  the  more  appi-opriatcly,  says  Kurtz,  as 
"the  Psalmist's  reference  is  not  so  much  to 


J  Under  the  handling  of  Paul  such  a  procedure  would 
have  marked  the  fiery  energy  of  his  style;  under  that 
of  our  author  it  marks  deliberate  and  elegant  art,  as 
also  the  some  one  and  somewhere  that  introduce  the  quo- 
tation. 

*I  doubt,  indeed,  if  the  '  somewhere,' both  here  and 
at  4  :  4,  should  not  rather  be  "  perhaiJs,"  "  I  suppose," 
not  as  implying  any  doubt  more  than  above^  but  as  a 


particle  of  modesty,  a  mere,  mode  of  pntlinf)  the  case. 
That  T-oi;  is  frequently  so  used,  both  in  6>?  nov  and  alone, 
I  need  not  argue. 

3  1  think  it  worth  our  reflection  that  when  we  look  at 
the  mental  and  moral  positions  of  man  in  the  universe, 
every  enlargement  by  science  of  the  realm  of  nature 
only  lends  in  our  conception  added  majesty  to  man's. 


32 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


8  Thou  hast  put  all  things  in  subjection  under  his 
feet.  For  in  that  he  i)ut  all  in  subjection  under  hiiu,  he 
lelt  nothing  thai  is  not  put  under  hiui.  But  now  we  see 
not  yet  all  things  put  under  him. 


Thou  didst  i)ut  all-things  in  subjection  under  bis 
feet. 
For  in  that  he  sul)jected  all  things  unto  bin),  be  left 
nothing  that  is  not  subject  to  hiiu.     But  now  we  see 


the  personality  as  to  tlie  si>iritual  nature  of 
angels  which  they  share  with  God."  Tiie 
"little  lower"  is  here  oi degree:  in  the  subse- 
quent application  it  becoines  a  "little  lower" 
of  time.  Thou  crownedst  him  with  glory 
and  honour — referring  to  man's  original  con- 
stitution; 'glory' — his  intrinsic  brightness, 
the  image  of  the  divine,  and  but  little  inferior 
to  the  angelic;  '  honour' — his  elevation  above 
the  earth  and  its  creatures  in  dignity  and 
authority.  The  two  passages  illustrate  each 
other.  And  didst  set  him  over  the  works 
of  thy  hands.  This  passage  is  found  in  the 
Codex  yinaiticus,  but  is  wanting  in  many 
MSS.  It  was  omitted  by  our  author,  as  not 
essential  to  his  purpose. 

8.  Thou  hast  put  (or,  didst  put)  all  things 
in  subjection  under  his  feet.  In  the  Psalm 
this  clearly  refers  to  the  dominion  over  the 
earth  with  which  man  was  invested  at  his  cre- 
ation. Tiiat  this  is  man's  ideal  position  is  evi- 
dent enough  even  amidst  all  the  wrecking  of  his 
nature,  and  darkening  of  his  glory,  which  has 
been  made  by  sin.  For  in  that  he  put  all  in 
subjection  under  him,  literally, /or  in  sub- 
jecting to  him  all  things.  He  left  nothing 
that  is  not  i)ut  under  him — unsubjected  to 
him.  The  writer  has  finished  his  quotation,  and 
proceeds  to  a  logical  deduction.  That  the  j)ass- 
age  was  commonly  used  as  ]\Iessianic  may  be 
inferred  from  a  like  mode  of  reasoning  from 
it  (though  for  a  different  end)  in  1  Cor.  15  :  27. 
"  But  when  he  saitii,"  etc.  The  author  here, 
however,  draws  simjily  the  natural  inference 
from  the  language ;  he  merely  explicates  wliat 
it  contains  by  implication.  It  has  declared 
that  God  has  subjected  to  man  all  things  (the 
'to  him'  refers,  of  course,  to  'man').  The 
expression,  says  the  author,  is  absolute;  it  im- 
plies an  unlimited  and  universal  subjection. 
The  writer  is  not  stating  what  God  did,  but 
what  the  language  implies  that  he  did,  and 
which  yet  we  do  not  see  verified  in  the  case  of 
actual  humanity.  But  now  we  see  not  yet 
all  things  put  under  him.    The  'now'  and 


the  '  not  yet'  are  generally  taken  as  temporal, 
not  logical.  I  prefer  to  regard  them,  especiallj' 
the  'now'  {viv),  as  logical,  and  would  give  to 
the  'under  him'  {avT<Z)  the  force  of  its  em- 
phatic position.  I  would  render:  "But  as  it 
is,  as  the  case  stands,  we  do  not  at  all  see,  we 
by  no  means  see  that  to  him  all  things  have 
been  subjected."  Tiiat  they  will  bear  this 
rendering  (especially  the  vvv  Si)  just  as  easily 
as  the  other,  both  by  classical  and  New 
Testament  usage,  I  need  not  stop  to  argue.i 
That  this  is  the  sense  here,  at  least  of  'now' 
(fwK),  I  feel  certain.  The  author  is  reason- 
ing. A  certain  statement  is  made  in  rela- 
tion to  man  which  is  not  actualized  in  the 
condition  of  humanity,  and  which  therefore  is 
transferred  to  a  Representative  of  that  hu- 
manity in  whom  it  is.  The  'but  now'  and  '  not 
yet'  then  as  particles  of  time  are  here  out  of 
place  ;  as  ftir  as  they  go  they  weaken  the  argu- 
ment, for  it  becomes  a  matter  of  time:  if  by- 
and-b^'  the  realization  may  occur,  the  author 
need  not  look  elsewhere  for  its  true  original. 
But  in  fact  the  picture  is  not  ful filled  in  man, 
and  has  no  prospect  of  being,  until  a  heavenly 
man  appears  on  tlie  scene,  in  whose  exaltation 
he  finds  a  precursor  and  pledge  of  the  future 
exaltation  of  humanity.  But  that  is  not  here 
in  question,  but  simply  the  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  portraiture  and  tlie  supposed  origi- 
nal, whence  he  argues  to  a  true  original  of  the 
portraiture  itself.  The  temporal  force  of  the 
particles^  therefore  is  less  relevant,  and  mars 
the  purity  of  the  reasoning.  The  declaration 
then  is  that  the  Psalmist's  ascription  of  a  uni- 
versal ascendancy  to  man  is  not  borne  out  by 
man's  actual  condition.  He  is  a  slave  to  a 
blighted  and  barren  earth,  to  disordered  ele- 
ments, to  savage  beasts,  and  to  pain,  sickness, 
and  death.  Those  who  (as  Bleek,  Lunemann, 
Kurtz)  apply  the  qriotation  directly  to  Christ 
take,  of  course,  these  particles  temporally, 
and  with  a  very  modified  interpretation  of  the 
jiassage.  They  distinguish  expressly  between 
being  "crowned  with  glory  and  honour,''  and 


•  The  ouTTco,  properly  not  at  all,  in  no  way,  is  indeed,  in 
its  ordinary  use,  not  yet,  and  has  chiefly,  though  not 
exclusively,  in  poetry,  the  meaning,  "  by  no  means." 

*  The  Lexicons  scarcely  do  justice  to  ovitia ;  yet  its 


logical  force  is  far  less  to  be  assumed  ;  (be  coniljinatiou 
vvv  Se  is  more  common  in  the  New  Testament  in  its 
logical  than  in  its  temporal  sense  (^yuv  S4  and  yvvX  Si"), 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


33 


9  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  raade  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels  for  the  sutlering  of  death,  erowiietl  with  glory 
and  honour;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste 
death  for  every  man. 


9  not  yet  all  things  subjected  to  him.  But  we  behold 
him  who  hath  been  made  'a  little  lower  than  the 
angels,  even  Jesus,  because  of  the  sutlering  of  death 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  that  by  the  grace 


1  Or,  for  a  little  while  lower. 


having  "all  in  subjection  under  him."  The 
former  Christ  has  already  received  ;  the  latter 
is  in  the  future,  awaiting  him  at  the  final 
judgment,  when  all  his  enemies  shall  have 
been  put  under  him.  But  to  this  interpreta- 
tion there  are  strong  objections.  (1)  We  can 
scarcely  doubt  that  the  phrases,  "crowned 
with  glory  and  honour''  and  having  "all 
things  in  subjection  under  him,"  are  used  as 
substantial  equivalents,  the  one  implying  all 
that  is  expressed  by  the  other.  (2)  Witli  this 
distinction  the  second  thought  should  not  come 
in  here  at  all  (as  tlie  purpose  is  to  dechire  his 
present  exaltation),  unless  perhaps  as  a  mere 
subordinate  proposition,  with  a  particle  (mcV), 
signifying,  indeed,  to  be  sure,  simply  to  pave 
the  way  for  the  etriphatic  affirmative  state- 
ment: "But  now  we  do  not  as  yet  indeed 
(oviTui  /xec)  see  all  things  put  under  him;  but 
wcdo  see  him  crowned  with  glory  and  honor." 
(.3)  Tiie  formal  and  elaborate  manner  in  which 
Jesus  is  introduced  at  ver.  9,  in  manifest  con- 
trast with  the  previously  mentioned  person- 
age, shows  unmistakably  that  theii  first  the 
author  bends  upon  him  the  conclusions  of  the 
preceding  citation.  In  short,  the  view  which 
makes  Jesus  at  once  the  object  of  the  entire 
citation  destroys  its  coherence  of  thought  and 
the  clearness  of  the  argumentation,  makes  in- 
explicable the  formal  opening  of  ver.  9,  and 
entangles  inextricably  the  whole  passage.  In 
contrast  with  the  fact  that  all  things  are  not 
yet,  or,  not  at  all,  subjected  to  man,  the  author 
proceeds. 

9.  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels — or,  more  ex- 
actly. But  him  loho  had  been  lowered  for  some 
Utile  below  the  angels,  Jesus,  we  behold.  The 
author  elegantly  puts  the  description  before 
the  name  as  more  characteristic — as  also  else- 
where, "the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our 
confession,  Jesus"  (3:i);  as  in  the  Greek,  "the 
Leader  and  Perfecter  of  faith,  Jesus"  (12:2) — 
and  adds,  thoughtfully,  and,  as  it  were,  lov- 
ingly, for  the  first  time,  the  earthly  human 
name  of  him  whom  he  had  before  styled  Son, 
God,   Lord.      He   here  turns  the  passage   to 


Christ,  and  shows  that  in  him  both  parts  of 
the  description  are  substantially  realized,  ami 
that  he,  therefore,  is  the  true  archetype  and 
realization   of   the   Psalmist's   picture.      Tlie 
language  of  the  Psalm,  then,  naturally  modi- 
fies itself  (the  Holy  Spirit  recasting  his  own 
language)  to  meet  the  new  exigencies.     The 
"  being  lowered"  is  the  Lord's  own  voluntary 
stoop;  the  "some  little"  of  degree  passes  into 
a  "some  little"  of  time  (and  the  more  easily, 
as  suggested  by  Delitzsch,  because  humanity's 
own  subordination  to  the  angels  is  rather  an 
accident  of  its  position,  than  grounded  in  its 
essential    nature),   and  the   "being  crowned 
with  glory,"   instead  of  being  coincident  in 
time  with  the  humiliation,  is  at  once  its  suc- 
cessor and  its  reward.     With  great  skill  has 
the  writer,  in  addressing  Hebrews,  to  wliom 
the    incarnation    was    naturally    an    ofl^ense, 
united  in  one  the  ideal  condition  of  man  with 
the  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  man,  as  he  im- 
mediately after  makes  his  suffering  of  death 
the  condition  of  his  glorification.     For  the 
suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory 
and  honour.     Rather,  On  account  of  his  suf- 
fering  of  death,    crowned    with    glory    and 
honor.     By  this  exacter  rendering,   'the  suf- 
fering of  death '  paves  the  way  for  his  glori- 
fication,  instead  of  being  represented  as  the 
purpose  of  his  humiliation  ;'   according,  also, 
to  the  more  usual  New  Testament  mode  of 
representation.     Here,  where  the  author  first 
expressly  mentions  the  suffering  of  death,  he 
would  aflfect  most  favorably  his  Hebrew  breth- 
ren by  introducing  it,  not  as  the  object  of  the 
humiliation,  but  as  the  condition  of  the  exal- 
tation.    Below,  when  he  has  familiarized  his 
readers  with  the  idea  and  the  purpose  of  his 
death,  he  may  speak  of  iiis  assuming  flesh  and 
blood  in  order  to  die,  and  by  dying  rescue 
humanity.     But  here  it  accords  with  the  gen- 
eral careful  strain  of  the  Epistle,  to  put  the 
first  reference  to  the  death  in  the  most  favor- 
able light.     '  Crowned  with  glory  and  honour' 
is  here  the  clear  equivalent  of  the  having  'all 
things  subjected  to  him,'  with  which  it  is  asso- 
ciated in  ver.  7,  8.     It  refers  to  Chri.«t's  exal- 


'^The purpose  would  have  been  more  naturally  expressed  by  ivfKa  toO  naBflv,  than  by  fiia  to  va.8tlv,  or  naSri/jia. 

C 


34- 


HEBREWS. 


[Cii.  II. 


tation  after  his  resurrection,  wiien  God  raised 
him  above  tlie  rage  of  his  enemies,  anointed 
him  eternal  King  and  Priest,  dechired  him 
his  Son  in  power,  and  gave  him  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth.  The  author,  then,  has 
reached  the  proof  of  the  thesis,  virtually  in- 
volved in  ver.  5,  that  not  to  angels,  but  to  the 
Son  of  man,  and  that,  as  man's  representative 
and  head,  God  had  subjected  this  new  and 
opening  world  of  redemption.  With  circuit- 
ous, but  sure  step,  he  has  brought  round  his 
argument,  till  he  finds  in  him  who  has  had 
all  things  subjected  to  him,  and  lias  been 
crowned  with  glory  and  ht)nor,  the  true  ideal 
of  the  Psalmist's  picture,  and  the  One  to  whom 
this  coining  world  has  been  really  made  sub- 
ject. But  into  the  web  of  his  reasoning  he 
has  skillfully  woven  the  fact  of  the  humili- 
ation and  death  of  this  glorious  Personage, 
and  shown  the  two  classes  of  facts  inseparably 
united.  This  point  being  established,  and 
the  humiliation  and  death,  as  it  were,  inci- 
dentally introduced,  he  passes  to  them  as  the 
principal  objects  of  his  picture.  The  glorified 
Messiah  recedes;  the  sutlering  and  dying  Jesus, 
brought  forward  with  exquisite  art,  comes  into 
the  foreground.  The  whole  arrangement  he 
tells  us — alike  the  humiliation  and  tiie  exalta- 
tion has  been  made— that  he  by  the  grace 
of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  man 
— or.  In  order  that  by  the  grace  of  God,  on 
behalf  of  every  -man,  he  might  taste  of  death. 
This  clause  has  been  very  variously  con- 
structed. For  "in  order  that"  (ottus)  some 
render  'so  that'  (equivalent  to  ware),  others, 
'after' — both  erroneously.  The  particle  de- 
notes piirjjose.  But  with  what  is  it  connected  ? 
The  construction  with  'made  lower'  across 
the  intervening  clause  is  extremely  harsh; 
that  witli  'crowned' — as  the  crowning /o^- 
lows  the  death — is  no  less  so  (he  was  crowned 
that  he  might  taste,  etc.);  unless  we  eitlier 
render  the  verb  "that  he  might  have  tasted," 
which  is  scarcely  possible,   or  throw  the  em- 


phasis entirely  on  'for  every  man'  (iw«p 
TToi/Tos),  and  make  the  clause  pregnantly  equiv- 
alent to  "that  the  death  which  he  has  tasted 
might  be  on  behalf  of  every  one"  (somewhat 
analogously  to  1  Peter  4  :  6).  The  passage,  so 
explained,  would  yield  a  good  sense,  but 
would  deprive  the  words  'taste  of  death' 
of  their  apparently'  intended  emphasis.  Tho- 
luck,  Liinemann  and  Kurtz  make  the  clause 
a  resumption,  and  a  brief,  but  pregnant, 
exponent  of  the  words,  "on  account  of  his 
suffering  of  death"  ;  the  author  returning  to 
it  to  add,  "  to  wit,  that  by  the  grace  of  God," 
etc.  So,  pretty  nearly,  Delitzsch,  who,  how- 
ever, refers  it  rather  to  the  entire  clause,  "on 
account  of  liis  suffering  of  death,  crowned," 
etc.,  making  it  assign  the  reason  why  Christ's 
glorification  was  made  conditional  upon  his 
previous  suffering  of  death ;  namely,  that 
being  thus  exalted  (passing  through  death  to 
exaltation)  his  death  might  be  for  the  exalta- 
tion of  Inimanity.  The  clause  seems  ap))ended 
rather  loosely  to  the  entire  verse,  to  bring  out 
the  general  idea  that  the  entire  arrangement 
— the  humbling  and  the  subsequent  exaltation 
— was  for  the  good  of  universal  humanity. 
The  humiliation  was,  that  he  might  taste  of 
death ;  the  exaltation  was,  that  the  death  might 
be  effectual  for  every  man — the  whole  was  by 
the  grace  of  God.  The  emphasis  is  about 
equally  distributed  on  the  three  clauses — the 
less  welcome  being  reserved  to  be  prepared  for 
by  the  other  two.  A  humbled  and  dying 
Messiah  was  utterly  repugnant  to  the  Jewish 
notions  of  their  expected  Messiah  ;  its  mention 
is  naturally  preceded  by  the  glories  that  are 
to  crown  it.  First,  is  the  grace  of  God.  The 
author  commends  the  fact  about  to  be  stated 
by  assuring  his  readers  that  it  was  by  the  gra- 
cious purpose  of  God.  To  such  an  arrange- 
ment no  Jew  could  urge  objection.  This 
fact  must  reconcile  him  to  a  suffering  and 
dj'ing  Messiah,  and  this  clause  is.of  great  sig- 
nificance.i     Secondly,  the  arrangement  is  rec- 


1  On  tlie  other  liand,  the  reading  found  in  many  MSS., 
namely,  x""?'*  Ocov,  but  which,  in  the  sixth  century, 
had  disappeared  entirely,  yet  has  found  some  recent 
advocates,  is  devoid  of  any  intelligible  purpose.  It  has 
been  interpreted  with  veueo-Soi  Bavdrov,  "  to  taste  of 
death  apart  from  God  "—that  is,  purely  in  his  human 
nature;  or,  separately  from— that  is,  forsaken  of  God  ; 
or,  with  iinip  Trairos,  "  on  behalf  of  every  creature  ex- 
cept (iod,"  analogously  to  1  Cor.  15:27.  But  the 
exception  in  the  case  of  God  to  the  otherwise  universal 


subjection  so  appropriate  there,  would  be  childish  and 
unmeaning  here.  Man  is  here  alone  referred  to;  if 
any  exceptions  were  in  order,  it  would  much  more 
naturally  be  angels.  The  critics  are  probably  right  in 
supposing  the  words  originally  a  marginal  gloss  on  the 
phrase,  "left  nothing  unsubjected  to  him"  (that  is, 
writes  the  commentator,  "except  God,"  x^P"  ^eoC), 
and  this,  mistaken  by  a  careless  copyist  for  a  correclion 
of  the  text  (xopiTi  fltoO)  a  little  below,  was  put  into  its 
place. 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


35 


10  For  it  became  hira,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and 
by  whom  ai-c  all  things,  in  Ininging  many  sons  unto 
glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  sutierings. 


10  of  God  he  should  taste  death  for  every  mnn.  For  it 
became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  through 
whom  are  all  things,  '  in  bringing  many  sons  unto 
glory,  to  make  the  ^author  of  their  salvation  perfect 


1  Or,  having  brought 2  Or,  eapta 


ouunended  as  being  "on  behalf  of  every  man." 
It  was  in  the  interest  of  individual  and  collect- 
ive liunianity  ;  it  was  to  realize  the  Psalmist's 
description  of  the  normal  condition  of  hu- 
manity, and  thus  fulfill  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  Thus  he  might  become  the  Saviour 
of  all  men,  especially  of  them  that  should  be- 
lieve. The  extension  of  the  'every'  (TravTo?) 
beyond  man— either  as  neuter,  every  thing,  to 
the  whole  creation  ;  or  as  masculine,  to  other 
beings,  as  angels — is  without  the  scope  of  the 
writer.  He  is  thinking  of  the  effects  of  re- 
demption, not  on  the  universe  generally,  but 
on  the  human  race;  and  here,  not  so  much  of 
the  realized  results  in  individual  salvation,  as 
of  the  general  scope  and  purpose  of  Christ's 
death  in  bringing  man  into  new  relations  to 
God,  and  in  making  possible  to  all,  and  actual 
to  many,  the  fulfillment  of  their  original  desti- 
nation. It  is  the  inference  from  the  passage 
so  skillfully  chosen  as  the  text,  that  man, 
ideally  placed  above  all,  is  actually  so  placed 
through  his  Kepresentative  and  Deliverer, 
Jesus.  Thirdly,  and  emphatically,  that  which 
Christ,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  for  the  benefit 
of  all,  was  to  do,  was  to  'taste  death."  It  is 
this  with  which  the  author  is  familiarizing  his 
readers  in  connection  with,  and  as  a  means  of, 
the  exaltation  of  man.  'Tasting  of  death  '  is 
a  figure  familiar  enough  to  poetry  generally, 
and  common  in  the  Greek  classics,  yet  here 
probably  of  Hebrew  origin.  It  is  not  designed 
to  indicate  a  brief  iynd  transient  experiencing 
of  death  {as  but  a  mere  tasting),  but  is  rather 
an  emphatic  and  elegant  periphrasis.  '  Tasting 
of  death,'  as  referring  to  a  sense  which  tests 
things  in  their  inner  nature,  denotes  rather 
intimacy  and  depth,  than  superficiality  of 
experience. 

10-18.  These  verses  expand  and  vindicate 
the  sentiment  of  the  last  clause ;  namely,  that 
by  God's  gracious  arrangement  Jesus  Christ 
suffered  death  on  behalf  of  every  man.  The 
passage  is  one  of  great  tenderness,  the  terms 
"sons,"  "brethren,"'  "children,"  indicating 
the  sympathetic  compassion  which  prompted 
the  humiliation  of  the  Redeemer. 


10.  This  states  in  fuller  form,  and  as  leading 
to  still  further  expansion,  the  threefold  idea  of 
the  last  clause,  and  in  the  same  order:  (1)  An- 
swering to  the  '  by  the  grace  of  God,'  we  have 
For  it  became  him,  for  (5td  with  accusative) 
whom  are  all  things,  and  by  (through) 
whom  are  all  things.  The  first  preposition — 
for,  on  account  of —as  naturally  applies  to  the 
Father  as  to  the  Son  ;  for  the  second — by, 
through — we  might  have  expected  from,  out 
o/(«f)i  or,  perhaps,  by  (vn-d),  of  ultimate  agency, 
though  with  an  intransitive  verb;  but  the  rea- 
soning can  scarcely  be  mistaken.  God  is  de- 
scribed by  those  attributes  which  vindicate 
his  right  to  arrange,  unchallenged,  for  advanc- 
ing the  dignity  of  hiscreatures;  and  the  phrase 
'it  became' — was  becoming,  befitting — marks 
an  internal  reason  for  the  arrangement  lying 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  and  in  his  rela- 
tions to  man.  Answering  to  the  'for  (o» 
behalf  of )  every  man,'  we  have  next,  bring- 
ing many  sons  unto  glory.  This  indicates 
the  largeness  of  God's  purpose  regarding  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  vindicates  his  subjection 
to  the  suffering  which  should  qualify  him  for 
the  work.  God  is  everywhere  the  ultimate 
agent  in  bringing  sinners  to  salvation.  Jesus 
Christ  becomes  the  file-leader  (ipxivyd?)  and 
Captain  of  the  sacramental  host.  "God  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,"'  etc.  (John  3: 16.)  God  savcs  and  Icads  to 
glory  his  people,  as  he  made  the  world,  through 
his  Son.  '  Many  sons '  stands  (Delitzsch )  here 
distinguished  from  one,  and  in  antithesis  to 
fern.  Had  God  been  satisfied  (the  writer  inti- 
mates) with  the  eternal  glory  of  the  One  and 
Only-begotten,  he  might  have  spared  that  one 
his  path  of  trial  and  suffering.  But  he  would 
have  it  partaken  by  '  many  sons,'  and  shrunk 
not  from  the  steps  required  for  its  accomplish- 
ment. It  has  been  questioned  whether  the 
participle  "bringing"  (ayayovra,  leading)  refers 
back  to  "him" — namely,  God,  or  forward  to 
'Captain,'  Leader;  whether  to  the  Father, 
or  to  Christ;  whether  the  'leading'  is  here 
supreme  or  subordinate.  Both  constructions 
are  grammatically  possible;  but  the  former  is 


56 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


easier  and  more  natural.'  But  applying  the 
participle  to  God,  what  is  its  import?  Not 
that  of  a  contemporaneous  and  continued  act, 
while  leading  {ayovra.),  nor  of  purpose,  in  order 
to  lead  (a^ovTa),  nor,  in  leading  (iv  tw  ayeiv).  It 
might  be  used,  perhaps,  here  in  the  sense  of 
*'  as  leading,  as  one  who  led  "  ;  and  thus  be- 
long equally  well  to  the  preceding  or  following, 
marking  God's  leadership,  or  Christ's  leader- 
ship;  but  a  construction  somewhat  harsh 
and  doubtful.  The  two  regular  and  natural 
constructions  are:  (1)  '■'■  after  leading,  having 
led — to  })erfect,^^  etc.;  (2)  leading,  to  perfect, 
equivalent  to,  to  lead  and  to  perfect,  making 
the  participle  and  the  infinitive  co-ordinate. 
But  in  what  sense  the  former?  It  might  de- 
note that  God,  after  leading  many  Old  Testa- 
ment saints  to  glory,  must  now,  at  the  opening 
of  the  New  Testament  times,  perfect,  through 
suffering,  their  Leader,  with  the  unexpressed 
thought  of  his  being  Captain  of  a  yet  mightier 
host  in  the  future.  Considering  the  relation 
of  this  Epistle  to  the  Old  Testament,  I  do  not 
think  this  view  unworthy  of  consideration. 
If  the  Old  Testament  saints  only  are  men- 
tioned, the  New  Testament  saints  would,  of 
course,  be  understood  as  to  follow  under  the 
new  and  perfected  conditions.  Kurtz  modi- 
fies this  view,  adopting  this  as  the  only 
natural  construction.  Answering  to  God 
as  the  Author  of  all  things,  the  'sons'  are 
God's  sons  by  creation,  ar^d  thus  all  men  ;  and 
tlie  'bringing  to  glory'  thus  far  realized  is 
only  the  bringing  them  on  the  way  to  that 
glory  into  whicli  none  of  them  had  as  yet 
entered,  but  which  awaited  them  in  the  Mes- 
sianic times.2  The  second  (2)  of  the  views 
above  given  virtually  co-ordinates  the  partici- 
ple with  the  verb;  namely,  leading  many  sons  to 
perfect,  etc.,  equivalent  to,  to  lead  many  .sons 
and  to  perfect.  Thus  the  action  expressed  by  the 


participle,  as  well  as  that  of  the  infinitive,  falls 
under  the  '  it  became'  (tTrpeirti/).  It  not  merely 
'became'  God,  as  one  leading,  or  after  lead- 
ing,' etc.,  to  perfect  their  leader  by  sufferings, 
but  it  became  him  to  do  the  one  as  well  as  the 
other.  The  fitness  consisted  not  merely  in 
appointing  him  to  die  after  he  had  undertaken 
a  certain  work,  but  also  in  undertaking  the 
work  which  would  require  him  to  die.  It 
gives  more  breadth  and  force  to  the  argument 
to  throw  back  the  fittingness  from  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  means  to  the  end,  to  the  enr" 
itself.*  Thus  I  incline  on  the  whole  to  rendei 
as  if  it  were  "to  bring  many  sons  to  glor^', 
and  perfect  through  sufferings  the  leader  of 
their  salvation."  An  objection  urged  against 
connecting  the  participle  with  the  following, 
so  as  to  make  Christ  the  one  bringing  the 
many  sons  to  glory  is  that  in  that  case  thej' 
would  be  spoken  of  not  as  'sons,'  but  as 
'brethren.'  This,  however,  would  be  by  no 
means  certain.  In  relation  to  him,  indeed, 
they  would  be  'brethren,'  but  in  his  and  their 
common  relation  to  God  they  are  sons;  and  it 
would  not  be  unnatural  that  he,  as  Son,  should 
be  spoken  of  as  bringing  inany  sons  to  glory. 
To  make  the  captain  (or,  leader)  of  their 
salvation  perfect  through  sufferings. 
This  clause  answers  finally  to  'taste  of  death' 
in  the  preceding  verse.  It  is  put  euphemisti- 
cally, for  the  humiliation  and  crucifixion  of 
the  Son.  It  is  conceived  not  in  the  light  of  a 
death;  it  is  a  perfecting,  qualifying  both  by 
internal  discipline  and  by  outward  glorifica- 
tion. The  emphasis  is  generally  said  to  lie 
on 'suffering' ;  but  whether  in  the  author's 
conception  it  quite  does  so  may  be  doubted. 
He  is  softening  to  his  readers  the  doctrine  of 
the  cross,  exhibiting  it  in  its  most  fiworable, 
and  at  the  same  time  its  justest,  light.  Does 
he  not  therefore  reserve  for  final  and  special 


1  With  the  second,  the  predicate  participle  (ayayovra) 
may  be  const  rued  with  the  following  noun,'  the  Captain 
«f  their  salvation,'  as  one  leading,  or  having  led.  With 
the  first,  the  participle  would  naturally,  indeed,  be  dya- 
yoi'Tt,  agreeing  with  aiiTw,  or  might  equally  welI,asdyo- 
yovTa,  agree  with  the  accusative  subject  of  reAeiuxrai. 

^Hofuiann's  ingenious  conceit  that  the  many  sons 
brought  to  glory  were,  Moses  to  the  prophetic  dignity, 
Aaron  to  the  high  priesthood,  David  to  the  kingship, 
etc.,  as  the  Son  was  now  to  be  brought  to  the  honor  of 
glorifying  humanity,  with  its  strange  perversion  of  the 
words'glory'  (Sofa)  and  '  salvation  '  (acoTijpi'a),  needs 
BO  refutation.    As  ordinarily  explained,  the  pasisage  is 


a  grand  appeal  to  the  benevolence  of  God  on  behalf  of 
the  unpalatable  facts  of  the  incarnation  and  crucifix- 
ion, and  all  that  lay  between.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what 
purpose  Hofmann's  view  could  subserve. 

3This  double  use  of  the  aorist  participle  is  among  the 
most  familiar  in  Greek.  Thus :  "  He  bade  them,  opening 
their  treasures,  present  gifts"  (iKiXtvirfv  avTov%  8r)aav- 
povi  avot^avTa^  Supa  Soiivai),  might  be  either,  "  He  bade 
them,  after  opening  their  treasures,  present  gifts,"  or, 
"  He  bade  them  open  their  treasures  and  present  gifts." 
The  participle  might  equally  well  be  an  incidental  prece- 
dent and  condition  of  the  "presenting,"  or  a  required 
condition  coming  under  the  eKfXevaev. 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


37 


11  For  both  he  that  sanctificth  and  they  who  are 
saiiL-titifd  are  all  of  one:  for  which  cause  he  is  not 
aihaiiJLil  to  call  them  Itrelliren, 

lli  Saviiifj;,  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren, 
iu  the  liiidst  of  the  church  will  1  sing  praise  uuio  thee. 


11  through  sufferings.     For  both  he  who  saiiclitielli  and 
they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one:  for  which  cause 

12  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  ihem  lirethren,  saying, 

1  will  declare  thy  name  unlo  my  brcllireii, 
In  the  midst  of  the  'congregation  will  1  sing  thy 
praise. 


einphasi.-?  the  word  '  perfect'  (xeAcMlxrat)  as  con- 
taining tlie  whole  fullness  of  his  vindication? 
thus,  not  'to  make  perfect  through  sufferings,' 
but  througk  sufferings  to  make  perfect.  The 
sufferings  are  of  no  value  except  as  they  qual- 
ify their  sul>ject  for  his  work;  they  are  sub- 
ordinate to  the  perfecting  and  consuni mating 
for  his  work  the  Leader  of  salvation.  Hence, 
if  it  behooves  God  to  lead  him  through  suffer- 
ings, much  more  through  these  sufferings  to 
make  him  perfect.  The  word  is  complex  in 
meaning:  the  "perfecting"  is  partly  inward, 
partly  outward.  It  embraces  at  once  the  legal 
fitness  which  Christs  death  imparted  to  him 
to  become  a  Saviour,  the  moral  fitness  which 
it  engendered  to  become  a  sj-mpathizing  high 
T)riest,  and  the  glorified  state  to  which  it 
raised  hiin ;  and  as  the  Leader  of  his  fol- 
lowers, it  was  not  intrinsic,  but  relative  jterfec- 
tion — perfection  for  his  followers,  that  required 
his  death.  'Through  .sufferings'  is  used  preg- 
nantly (5"i),  at  once  as  a  means  and  a  way. 
He  attained  his  legal  and  moral  fitness  as  a 
Redeemer,  through  sufferings  as  a  medium ; 
he  passed  to  his  heavenly  glory  through  suf- 
ferings as  a  way.  The  'salvation'  of  this 
clause  is  the  'glory'  of  the  preceding;  it  is 
that  side  of  the  glorification  which  belongs  to 
the  'many  sons,'  but  not  to  the  single  Son. 
He  was  glorified,  but  not  saved  (except  in  a 
very  qualified  sense);  they  were  both  saved 
and  glorified,  their  salvation  being  completed 
and  crowned  by  glorification.  Till  then  they 
are  saved  but  in  hope  (Kom.  8 :  -n) ;  saved  but  ap- 
proximately. "Now  is  our  salvation  nearer 
than  when  we  believed."  In  like  manner  it 
presently  appears  as  sanctification.  'Captain' 
or  Leader  {ipxny^i)  \  properly  y??-s<  in  a  series, 
file  leader,  then  Prince,  Leader;  then,/o?<«(/e?*, 
originator,  which  seems  its  meaning  here,  as 
at  5  :  9 — "  author  (alnos)  of  eternal  salvation." 
Philo  calls  Adam  the  (ipxivw)  head  and  file 
leader  of  the  race,  conducting  them  on  to  a 
common  goal  with  himself.  The  common 
Sonship  to   God   of  Christ  and    his   people, 


stated  above,  is  now  further  developed  a» 
ground  of  the  fittingne.ss  (eTrpeirei')  of  God's 
thus  humbling  his  Son.  The  following  pass- 
age is  not  a  mere  incidental  justification  of 
the  '  many  sons'  above,  but  a  link  in  the  chain 
of  argument  that  establishes  the  necessity 
(since  thei-efore,  eirei  oC»',  ver.  14)  of  the  incar- 
nation and  sufferings  of  the  Lord. 

11.  For  both  he  that  sanctitieth  and 
they  who  are  sanctified i  are  all  of  (jmo])- 
erly,  from)  one — that  is,  fronj  one  Father, 
and  this  not  from  one  earthly'  father,  Adam, 
but  from  one  Heavenly  Father,  God;  and 
from  him,  not  as  universal  Father  (Creator  and 
Preserver),  but  as  spiritual  Father  and  Regen- 
erator; "sons  of  God,  which  were  born  not  of 
blood,  .  .  .  but  from  God."  See  John  1  :  18; 
Rom.  8  :  14,  seq. ;  1  John  3:1.  As  equivalents 
of  'leading  to  glory,'  'glorified,'  we  have 
'sanctificth'  and  'sanctified,'  describing  the 
glorification  in  its  deojjer  spiritual  character, 
the  moral  transformation  tliat  must  precede, 
and  be  the  essence  of,  any  true  outward  exal- 
tation. The  verb  (iyia^ui,  consecrate,  make 
holy)  is  doubtless  chosen  with  reference  to  the 
"  make  perfect"  (n^noiiv),  and  denotes  ritual, 
and  then  moral  perfection.  "For their sakes," 
says  the  Saviour,  "  I  sanctity,  consecrate,  nij-- 
self."  (John  17: 19.)  He,  already  hol\',  needed 
but  the  formal  and  ritual  sanctification;  they, 
fallen  and  guilty,  needed  an  internal  and  spir- 
itual one.  For  which  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren.  The 
language  delicately  intimates  both  the  like- 
ness and  the  unlikeness,  both  the  parity 
and  the  disparity  of  the  Redeemer  and  the 
redeemed.  As  being  from  one  Father,  they 
are  alike  sons,  yet  as  infinitely  superior  to 
them  in  original  glory  and  in  moral  purity,  it 
is  a  condescensi(m  in  him  to  acknowledge  the 
fraternal  tie.  He  might  bo  'asiiained  to  call 
them  brethren,'  but  is  not.  He  concedes  to 
them  at  once  the  name  of  brethren,  and  the 
affection  which  the  name  implies. 

12.  Saying,    I   will    declare  thy  name 


'  Oi  ayiaiofifvoi,  present,  not  perfect  participle,  either  as  denoting  those  who  are  in  process  of  sanctification, 
or  the  successive  subjects  of  sanctiticatioD. 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


1:5  Atxl   agiiiii,   I   will   i)tit   my  trust   in   liini.      And  I  13  Aiid  again,  I  will  put  my  trust  in  him.     And  again, 
again,  Heboid  1  and  tlju  cblldren'  which  God  hath  given  Beliold,  1  and  the  children  whom  Ood  hath  given 

me.  I 


iiuto  my  brethren,  in  the  midst  of  the 
church  (congregation)  will  I  sing  praise 
unto  thee.  This  is  from  Ps.  22  :  22,  a  P.salin 
of  David  wliicl),  with  its  many  striking  corre-  | 
si)on(k'iu'C's  to  the  Lord's  earthly  historj',  may  I 
clearly  be  called  typico-proi)lietical ;  in  whicii  j 
the  niihstrel-proi)het,  already  anointed  by 
Samuel  and  speedily  destined  to  the  throne, 
yet  now  jHTsecuted  and  in  flight,  pours  out  his 
comi)laints  over  the  wretchedness  of  his  con- 
dition, yet  finally  rejoices  in  the  assurance  of 
ultimate  deliverance,  and  the  universal  tri- 
umi)h  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  one  of 
those  Psalms  which,  originally  uttered  by 
David,  the  type  of  Christ  in  rosjjcct  to  his  own 
personal  condition,  had,  in  the  purpose  of  the 
inspiring  Spirit,  a  still  higher  application  to 
the  Son  of  David,  while,  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh  and  a  subject  of  exile  and  persecution, 
he  with  strong  crying  and  tears  called  uj)on 
God,  and  saw  in  the  far-off  distance  his  crown 
and  trium|)h.  The  anointed,  yet  temporaril}' 
e.xiled  David  stands  for  the  anointed,  yet  ex- 
iled Jesus.  History  unrolls  the  scroll  of 
prophecy.  Christ,  as  the  antitype  of  Mo.ses, 
of  David,  of  Solomon,  gives  the  true  signifi- 
cance to  their  character  and  history',  just  as 
the  Christian  Church  reproduces  and  illus- 
trates the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  congregation ; 
and  the  heavenly  Canaan  and  the  New  Jeru- 
salem furnish  their  "true  rest"  and  "the  city 
which  hath  foundations"  to  the  people  of 
God.  The  Messianic  character  of  the  Psalm 
is  indicated  by  our  Lord's  borrowing  its  lan- 
guage on  the  cross:  "  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  The  citation  is 
made  verbally  from  the  Septuagint,  with  the 
exchange  of  (Sirj-yijo-oMai),  /  xvilL  recount,  de- 
clare, for  (airayytkii),  I  will  report,  will  bring 
back  tidings,  which,  less  applicable  to  David, 
is  beautifully  so  to  Christ,  who  brings  back  to 
liis  earthly'  brethren  a  report  from  his  hea- 
venlj' home.  (Joi.na:  ii.seq.)  The  passage  ini- 
plics  David's,  and  through  hiin  his  greater 
Son's,  recognition  of  Israel,  here,  of  course, 
the  si)iritual  Israel,  as  his  brethren.  A  conde- 
scetision  in  the  earthly  David,  it  was  infinitely 
more  so  in  the  heavenly. 

13.  And   again,  1  will  put  my  trust  in 
him.    And  again,  Behold  I  and  the  chil- 


dren  which  God  hath  given  me.  Still 
other  citations  to  illustrate  the  community  of 
Sonship  between  Christ  aiid  his  i)eople.  The 
previous  one  was  taken  from  David,  who,  as  ii 
tj'i)e  of  Christ,  recognizes  the  brotherly  rela- 
tion between  himself  and  the  congregation  of 
Israel ;  these  two  are  from  Isaiah,  also  a  type 
of  Christ,  whose  very  name  means  Saviour, 
and  whose  clear  predictions  of  the  Messiah 
constitute  him  the  "evangelical  prophet." 
They  are  taken  from  Isa.  8  :  17,  18,  from  a 
transaction  in  which  Isaiah  ai)pears  sjiccially 
in  his  t^-pical  character.  Thej'  occur  contin- 
uously, but  are  separated  by  the  author  by  an 
'and  again,'  ])robal)ly  because  they  bring  out 
difiV'rent  phases  of  the  Messiah's  relation  to  his 
brethren  and  to  God.  The  entire  passage  is 
beyond  a  question  t^'pical.  Isaiah,  fraught 
with  the  "si)irit of  Jestjs,"  tj'pifies  the  Saviour; 
and  his  children,  given  him  s))ecially  from 
God,  having  s^'inbolical  significance,  betoken 
partly'  present  wrath  and  distress,  ])artly  the 
deliverance  which  will  yet  break  througli  the 
surrounding  judgments.  'I  will  jjut.my  tnist 
in  him'  for  future  deliverance,  exclaims  the 
llei)resentativeof  the  Messiah,  and,  as  a  i)h'dge 
of  that  deliverance,  '  Behold  I  and  the  chil- 
dren that  God  hath  given  to  ine.'  The  bearing 
of  the  first  of  these  citiitions  upon  the  iiuthor's 
l)uri)o.se  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  represents 
(typically)  the  Messiah  as  ]>utting  his  trust  in 
God,  and  thus  exhibits  him  and  his  followers 
in  a  common  relation  of  dependence,  and 
therefore  virtuallj'  on  a  level.  The  .'iecond 
points  out  this  community  still  more  directly. 
The  si)eaker  and  the  childr(;n  that  God  gave 
to  him  are  jilaced  in  the  same  category,  and 
appear  as  brethren.  In  the  mouth  of  the 
jjrophet,  the  type,  the  children  are  Ins  chil- 
dren, given  him  by  G(jd.  In  the  mouth  of 
.Jesus,  the  antitype,  they  are  God's  children, 
whom  he  gave  to  his  Son,  and  of  whom,  there- 
fore, he  is  the  elder  brother.  (John6;S7;  17-6.) 
The  difference  in  the  cases  is  accidental ;  the 
likeness  is  essential.  In  both,  the  children  are 
given  to  the  tyi)ical  and  to  the  real  IMessiah, 
specially  and  marvelously  by  God;  in  both, 
they  sustain  a  relation  of  de])endence;  in  both, 
by  community  of  nattire,  a  virtual  eijuality. 
The  human  father  is  the  fleshly  brother  of  his 


Ch.  II.] 


HEBREWS. 


39 


cliilclron.  The  entire  j)urpi)se  of  our  autlior  i 
sends  him  to  tlie  Old  Testament  for  iilustra-  i 
tions  of  tlie  ciiaraeter  and  relations  of  Ciirist.  j 
From  the  nature  of  the  ease,  then,  his  iliustra-  j 
tions  must  be  drawn  Uirgely  from  its  symbols, 
for  in  those  are  its  Messianie  predictions  mostly  \ 
contained.  The  merely  verbal  i)rophecies  (»f| 
Christ  in  the  Old  Testament  are  far  less  nu- 
merous than  its  acted  prophecies,  and  not  a 
whit  more  pertinent  and  satisfactory.  Our 
author's  u.se,  therefore,  of  symbolical  cases, 
like  the  i»resent,  was  legitimate,  not  merely 
from  the  Jewish  point  of  view,  but  from  every 
point  of  view.  A  reference  to  the  ninth  chap- 
ter abundantly  confirms  here  the  Messianic 
interpretation.'  Tiie  first  step  in  the  proof  of 
the  tittingness  of  God's  proceeding  in  humb- 
ling his  Son  is  taken  in  showing  tiie  relation  of 
Orulkerhood  existing  between  the  Saviour  and 
the  saved.  In  this  relation  the  author  latently 
finds  already  an  argument  for  this  proceeding. 
Tiiey  for  whom  the  Son  of  God  died  are  sons 
of  God  ;  th(^y  for  whom  the  Redeemer  suft'ered 
are  his  brethren.  It  may,  indeed,  be  objected 
tiiat,  as  they  are  not  sons  and  brethren  until 
after  they  are  redeemed,  their  being  such  can 
bo  no  logical  ground  for  the  redemi)tive  sacri- 
fice. True,  in  strict  logic.  But  that  which 
God  saw  that  they  were  capable  of  becoming, 
and  would  become,  may,  without  violence,  be 
ideally  transferred  to  their  previous  condition. 
They  were  sons,  prolepticnUi/ ;  by  anticipation. 
God  saw  in  them  sons;  Ciirist  saw  in  them 
brethren;  and  hence  it  became  God  to  hum- 
ble his  Son,  and  Christ  to  humble  himself,  in 
order  to  lead  them  to  glory.  Kurt/,  avoids  the 
jiroleptic  view  by  taking,  as  already  seen,  the 
'sons'  to  be  ransomed,  not  as  sons,  by  their  de- 


scentfrom'Adam,  but  by  virtue  of  theircreation 
in  tlie  image  of  God:  and  the  Ransonier  then 
becomes,  not  the  Theanthropic  Son  of  God,  but 
the  pre-incarnate  and  eternal  Son  of  God,  as 
the  "cH'ulgence  of  his  glory  and  the  impress 
of  his  substance."  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  in  this  essential  and  eternal  Sonship  is 
laid  the  basis  of  his  theanthropic  relation;  it 
is  only  as  being  the  Only  liegotten  that  he 
could  become  the  First  Begotten,  and  thus  the 
First  born  among  many  brethren.  And  so  in 
the  surviving  and  unextinguished  wrecks  of 
that  original  Sonship  in  man  is  found  the  basis 
for  rearing  the  structure  of  his  new  Christian 
Sonship.  It  is  one  who  appears  not  "  less  than 
Archangel  ruined"  that  Christ  comes  to  clothe 
with  more  than  his  "original  brightness."  But 
we  must  still  think  that  the  common  Sonship 
and  the  mutual  brotherhood  of  our  |)assage  lie 
within  the  sphere  of  redcMuption,  and  that  the 
explanation  is  found  in  the  pregnant  language 
of  Rom.  8  :  "  Whom  he  did  foreknow  he  also 
did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son"  (that  is,  to  be  brought  with  him 
into  a  common  relation  of  Sonshi]))  "that  he 
might  be  a  first-born  among  many  breth- 
ren." But  the  argument  is  not  finished.  These 
sons  of  God  and  brethren  of  Christ  must  bear 
his  nature,  or,  rather,  he  must  bear  theirs.  As 
he  has  undertaken  to  make  them  his  brethren, 
to  all  which  that  relation  implies  he  must  con- 
descend, and  all  which  that  relation  demands 
he  must  fulfill. 

14.  Forasmuch  (or,  since)  then  the  chil- 
dren— children  of  God  and  ])rethren  of  Christ: 
but  he  here  adopts  the  term  from  the  last  verse, 
and  dwells  upon  it  with  a  tender  sense  of  the 
ideas  of  dependence  and  aflection  which  clu.ster 


•  The  superficial  difficuUies  attending  the  alleged  Mes- 
sianic citations  iu  tlie  New  Testament  from  the  Old, 
vanish  on  a  deeper  investigation.  The  case,  in  fact, 
becomes  reversed,  and  the  unsolvable  difficulties  are 
found  to  attend  the  ?iOH-Messianic  interpretation. 
Deny  this,  and  the  whole  Old  Testament  becomes  an 
inexplicable  enigma.  The  whole  signiticance  of  the 
Old  Dispcn.sation  is  its  foreshadowing  of,  and  prepar- 
tion  for,  the  New.  Its  whole  history  is  a  history  of  the 
preliiniiiary  stages  of  redemption  ;  its  whole  structure 
a  grand  forecourt  to  the  still  grander  Christian  temple. 
Abraham  was  chosen  to  be  the  founder  of  the  Seed,  In 
whom  all  the  nations  should  be  blessed  ;  his  descendants 
were  set  apart  as  the  birth-nation  of  the  Messiah  ;  all  its 
institutions  were  organized  on  this  basis,  and  the  whole 
history  typified  tliat  of  the  spiritual  Israel.  Bearing 
this  in  miud,  we  cannot  be  surprised  or  stumbled  that 


under  the  clearer  lights  of  the  New  Testament  the 
pregnant  hints  of  the  Olil  take  a  new  and  unexpected 
meaning;  and  to  find  the  Spirit  of  inspiration,  in- 
terpreting his  own  words  and  symbols  into  a  clearer 
development  of  Christ.  The  author  of  our  Epistle, 
too,  was  addressing  Jews — and  Jews  who,  though  (^hri.s- 
tians,  were  still  held  more  or  less  under  the  traditionary 
trammels  of  the  synagogue.  We  cannot,  then,  doubt 
that  his  Interpretations  would  be  .scrutinized  with  jeal- 
ous rigor,  and  that  they  must,  therefore,  as  to  their 
general  Christological  character,  have  coincided  with 
its  prevalent  views;  and  (here  is  no  so  rational  mode 
of  accounting  for  the  prevalence  of  these  views  among 
the  earlier  Jews  as  to  supjwse  that  they  were  founde.l 
in  truth.  Their  dillerence  from  the  apostle's  was  not 
as  to  their  application  to  Christ,  but  their  application 
to  Jesus. 


40 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


14  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of 
flesh  ami  blood,  he  also  hiiuselC  likewise  took  part  of 
the  same;  that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him 
that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ; 


14  me.  Since  then  the  children  are  sharers  in  i  flesh 
and  blood,  he  also  himself  in  like  manner  partook 
of  the  same;  that  through  death  he  2 might  bring 
to  nought  him  who  8 had  the  jiower  of  death,  that  is, 


1  Gr.  blood  andfie.sh 'i  Or,  may :!  Or.  hath. 


about  tlie  term  (rd  n-aiiia,  the  little  children) — 
are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood  (Greek, 
bldod  and  flesh),  he  also  himsell'  likewise 
took  part  of  the  same.  Here  the  proliptic 
character  of  the  previous  argutnent  fully  comes 
out.  Because  the  children — tliat  is,  those  who 
were  to  be  children — were  mortal,  therefore 
Christ  became  mortal ;  because  those  vjho  were 
to  be  his  brethren  were  in  the  flesh,  therefore 
he  becaine  flesh.  Tiie  argument,  apparently 
faulty,  is  simply  so  from  the  brevity  of  the 
statement.  Christ  saw  in  these  future  heirs  of 
salvation  brethren  and  children  of  God,  and 
hastened  to  j)Ut  himself  into  the  position  which 
would  enable  him  to  realise  this  ideal  picture. 
Its  touching  beauty  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
author  disguises,  holds  in  the  background,  the 
depraved,  guilty,  rebellious  character  of  the 
objects  of  redemption.  Jesus  dies  not  for 
apostates,  but  for  sons;  not  for  aliens,  but  for 
brethren.  His  compassionate  love  already 
invests  them  with  the  character  to  which  it  is 
eventually  to  bring  them.  There  is  a  double 
logic— that  of  the  head  and  that  of  the  heart; 
that  of  fact  and  that  of  feeling.  The  one  sees 
in  men  enemies  whom  Christ  intends  to  con- 
vert into  friends,  children,  brethren,  and  for 
whom  he  therefore  assumes  human  nature; 
the  other  sees  in  men  by  anticipation,  breth- 
ren, children,  friends,  and  for  whom,  there- 
fore, because  they  are  human,  he  assumes 
human  nature.  In  the  one  case,  he  dies  for 
them  as  they  are;  in  the  other  case,  he  dies 
for  them  as  they  are  to  be.*  In  order  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  (bring  to 
mnt(jht)  him  that  had  the  power  of  death, 
that  is,  the  devil.  In  harmony  with  the 
tender  strain  of  the  preceding  verses  is  the 
representation  here.  It  is  not  the  guilt  of 
humanity  that  the  com))assionate  Saviour  sees, 
but  its  wretcliedness.  He  takes  flesh  and  blood, 
not  to  reclaim  rebels  and  reconcile  enemies, 
but  to  ransom  brethren  who  were  in  bondage 
to  death  and  its  terrors.     We  need  not  say  that 


each  point  of  view  has  equally  its  truth,  and 
that  the  gospel  equally  contemplates  both — 
man's  depravity,  and  his  ruin;  his  wicked- 
ness, and  his  weakness;  the  criminality  which 
has  subjected  him  to  death,  and  the  death 
under  whose  burden  and  curse  he  groans. 
And,  indeed,  the  hereditarrj  chaiacter  of  the 
curse  of  humanity,  the  fact  that  death  reigns 
"even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the 
similitudeof  Adam's  transgression"  (Rom.  6;  u); 
the  fact  that  sin  is  not,  as  in  the  ease  of  the 
devils,  purely  individual,  but  a  matter  of 
birth  and  race,  renders  eminently  natural  and 
proper  the  second  point  of  view,  and  creates  a 
presumption  that  God  intended  to  provide  a 
deliverer  to  open  a  fountain  of  cleansing  and 
life,  whose  streams  should  run  alongside  those 
of  pollution  and  death.  It  is  as  a  victim  of 
death  that  man  is  here  regarded  ;  as  the  sub- 
ject of  the  penalty  which  was  denounced  upon 
his  transgression  in  Eden.  All  that  is  involved 
in  this  death — the  ruin  of  the  soul,  as  well  as 
the  dissolution  of  the  body — is,  of  course,  re- 
trieved in  the  deliverance.  But  the  idea  is 
conceived  more  concretely.  Man  is  a  slave, 
not  to  death,  but  to  the  devil,  who  has  the 
power  of  death,  and  who,  through  and  in 
death,  holds  dominion  over  the  race.  Satan 
has  the  power  of  death — not,  indeed,  abso- 
lutely; for  absolute  dominion  belongs  only 
to  God,  but  as  having  originally,  by  his  subtle 
arts,  brought  it  into  the  world — being  a  homi- 
cide, a  murderer  from  the  beginning — and 
still,  as  "the  god  of  this  world,"  struggling 
to  perpetuate  his  disastrous  sovereignty.  The 
writer,  however,  intends  no  nice  distinction. 
The  expression  is  figurative  and  far-reaehing. 
It  simply  conceives  Satan  as  monarch  in  the 
realm  of  death,  originating,  controlling  it,  and 
through  it  wielding  his  tyrannical  sceptre  over 
man.  To  destroy  the  monarch  of  death,  then, 
is  to  destroy  death  ;  to  destroy  death,  is  to  de- 
stroy its  monarch  (leaTopveii',  a  word  rare  in  the 
classics,  but  common  in  the  New  Testament, 


»  The  Greek  verb  translated  'are  partiikers,'  is  in  the  I  flesh  ;  the  aorist  ttetiaxfv,  'took  part  of,'  or,  partook, 
perfect  tense  ('ceKOK'oii'TjKei'),  meaning,  Awre /((!(/,  (i?i(Z4<i//  denotes  the  act  of  entering  into  and  putting  on  li\i- 
lidve part  in,  and  denotes,  properly,  those  whose  perma-  nianity.  napan-Ajjo-iws,  m  like  manner,  or,  similarly,  is 
neut  aud  normal  condition  is  that  of  being  in   the  I  used  elegantly  for  ofiotoit. 


Ch.  IL] 


HEBREWS. 


41 


15  And  deliver  theiu,  who  through  fear  of  death  were 
all  their  liCetiiue  sulyeet  to  bondage. 

16  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  o/ angels; 
but  he  took  on  kiia  the  seed  of  Abraham. 


15  the  devil ;  and  '  might  deliver  all  them  who  through 

fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  .sulijei-t  lo  iMjnd- 

11)  age.    «For  verily  not  to  angels  doth  ho  give  help,  but 


1  Or,  may 2  Or,  For  verily  not  of  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he  takcth  hold  of. 


render  inoperative — hence,  nullify,  overthrow, 
destroy,     (i  cor.  15:24.)     "  When  he  shiill  have 
annihilated  (Cointnon  Version,  put  down)  all 
rule  iind  all  authority  anci  power."     It  is  used 
specifically  of  abolishing  death.     (iCor.i5:26; 
2  Tim.  1 :  10.)     The  dostruction  of  Satan,  the  lord 
of  death,  Clirist  accomplishes  through  death — 
not  simply  by  his  death,  but  by  death,  taUen 
abstractly  and  absolutely;  by  turning  the  en- 
ginery which  Satan  wields,  the  forces  of  his 
kingdom  against  himself,  and  making  death 
itself  the  instrument  of  the  destruction  of  its 
lord.     How  the  death  of  Christ  accoinplishes 
this  it  is  not  here  our  province  to  discuss.     His 
death   mtiy   be    regarded  in   several   aspects, 
each,  no  doubt,  essential  to  a  just  estimate  of 
it.     In  one  most  obvious  aspect,  it  appears  as 
a  triumphant  resistance  to  the  temptations  of 
Satan.     In  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  min- 
istry, the  tempter  had  concentrated  upon  him 
in  vain  his  arts  of  seduction.     He  returned, 
at  its  close,  with  tenfold  and  desperate  malice, 
and  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross  exhausted 
on  him  his  hellish  fury.     Jesus  maintained  his 
integrity,  drank  resolutely  the  cup  which  was 
commended tohislips,  wrestled  with  the  Poten- 
tate of  death,  and,  even  in  dying,  achieved  a 
victory.     Thus,   as  Representative   Man,    he 
triumphed  over  him  to  whom  the  first  repre- 
sentative  man   had  succumbed.      Adam,   in 
possession  of  life,  yielded  to  temptation,  and 
incurred  death  ;  Jesus,  bound  to  death,  resisted 
the  temptation  to  avoid  it,  and  in  facing  and 
enduring  it,  procured   life  both   for  himself 
and   his  people.      Yet,    more   than   this,    our 
Lord's  death  was  a  strictly  expiatory  sacrifce 
ff)r  human  guilt.     His  resistance  of  the  devil 
was  not  the  expiation  itself,  but  was  its  indis- 
pensable condition.      If  the  victim  had  not 
been   perfect  the  sacrifice  would    have   be(Mi 
without  efficacy.     He  must  first  struggle  witii 
Satan  in  life ;    he   must  then   struggle  with 
Satan  in   death,  and,  as  it  were,  with  death 
itself;    and   by  dying   in   and   through    holy 
obedience,  as  Adam  had  died  in  and  through 
transgression  and  guilt,  wrest  the  sting  from 
death,  and  lift  its  curse  from  the  soul  of  hu- 


manity. The  destruction  of  death,  I  may 
add,  was  to  be  the  grand  feature  of  the  Mes- 
sianic era.  (isa.  25 :  s;  Hosea  13 :  u.)  Clirist  accom- 
plishes this  work  —  first,  by  delivering  his 
people  from  the  fear  of  death,  and  destroying 
within  them  that  principle  of  sin  wliich  is 
its  cause  and  sting;  and,  finally,  by  annihi- 
lating all  its  effects  in  the  resurrection  of  the 

body.       (1  Cor.  15.) 

15.  And  deliver  them  who  through  fear 
of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject 
to  bondage.  'Them  who.'  Thesepersonswho- 
soever,  or,  as  many  as.  The  phrase  designates 
the  class  to  whom  the  redemption  is  applicable. 
Itatonce  limits  the  class,  and  declares  its  univer- 
sality within  the  sphere  of  that  class.  It  re- 
stricts the  redemption  to  man,  and  declares — as 
above  (ver.9),  'for  every  man,'  or,  on  behalf  of 
every  one — the  applicability  of  redemption  to 
the  entire  race.  Not  that  it  teaches  the  actual 
salvation  of  all,  any  more  than  John  1  :  9, 
'^'The  light  that  lighteneth  every  man  that 
Cometh  into  the  world,"  or  John  12  :  32,  "And 
I,  if  I  be  lifted  uj)  from  the  earth,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me."  The  passage  thus  marks  a 
peculiar  and  striking  characteristic  of  hu- 
manity. As  alone  possessing  body  and  soul, 
man  alone  is  liable  to  death ;  and  thus  liable 
and  having  sinned,  he  groans  under  its  per- 
petual dread,  is  in  bondage  to  its  terrors,  and 
to  the  tyrant  who  swtiys  its  sceptre.  Death  is 
the  great  dread  and  terror  of  the  race.  Even 
the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  stood  in  fear  of 
the  darkness  and  gk)om  of  the  grave.  Hades, 
with  his  deep  and  dismal  recesses,  his  silence, 
solitude,  and  corruption,  they  regarded  with 
shuddering.  Contrast  the  prayer  of  Heze- 
kiah  and  many  of  the  psalms  with  the  jo3-ous 
and  triumphant  tones  of  the  New  Testament 
regarding  death.  To  the  apostle,  ''to  die  is 
gain."  He  longs  to  be  absent  from  the  bod^-, 
and  at  home  with  the  Lord.  He  .sees  a  house 
not  made  with  hands,  an  undecaying,  heav- 
enly, eternal  htibitation,  replacing  the  tninsient 
tiiberniiclo  of  flesh. 

1(».  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels,  etc.,  or.   For  it   is  not, 


42 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  II. 


17  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooved  hiiu  to  be 
made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  mer- 
ciful and  faithful  hijjh  priest  in  things  perhiining  to 
tiod,  to  make  recouciliatioii  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 


17  he  giveth  help  to  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Wherefore 
it  behoved  him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto 
his  l)iethren,  that  he  might  become  a  merciful  and 
faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to 


doxibtlet-s}  angels  whom  he  rescueth,  but  he 
resciteth  the  seed  of  Abraham.  The  once 
wick'ly  received,  but  now  exploded,  rendering, 
"  taketh  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels," 
makes  the  sentence  little  better  than  a  tauto- 
logical platitude.  The  author  has  said  that 
the  Redeemer  took  part  in  the  flesh  and  blood 
that  are  shared  by  the  children.  It  is  no  ad- 
vance on  the  thought  to  say  that  he  took  not 
on  him  the  nature  of  angels ;  but  it  is  a  decided 
advance  in'  the  thought  to  say,  in  accounting 
for  his  assuming  flesh  and  blood,  that  he  was 
not  coitiing  to  the  rescue  of  angels,  who  possess 
not  bodies,  and  are  not  subjects  of  death.  The 
verb  in  this  sentence  {k-niKaix^averai)  may  be 
translated  layeth  hold  upon.  The  force  of  the 
preposition  uj^on  (k-ni)  goes  over  to  the  person 
laid  hold  of  It  is  not  "takes  ujion  himself," 
but,  "lays  hold  ?/ji3on  another'^  for  rescue  or 
relief,  as  in  8  :  9,  "in  the  day  when  I  took 
them  by  the  hand,"  or,  laid  hold  of  them. 
The  present  tense  either  marks  the  act  con- 
ceived as  abiding,  or  is  put  spiritedly  for  the 
past.  '  The  seed  of  Abniham.'  Not  that  the 
apostle  intends  to  restrict  the  redemjition  to 
the  Jews,  in  denial  of  the  broader  destination 
of  the  gospel ;  but  the  Epistle,  in  its  practical 
scope,  expressly  designed  for  Hebrews,  keeps 
here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Hebrew  point  of  view. 
It  is  doubtful,  perhaps,  whetlicr  'the  seed  of 
Abraham'  denotes,  here,  Abraham's  spiritual 
offspring, — the  spiritual  Israel — or  rather,  as 
I  think,  'the  seed  of  Abraham'  as  the  pre- 
destined centre  and  source  of  salvation  to  the 
world.  In  Abraham's  seed  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth  were  to  be  blessed;  and,  therefore, 
in  coming  to  the  rescue  of  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, Christ  comes  to  the  rescue  of  entire 
humanity.  It  stands  as  the  representative  of 
the  race.  The  '  seed  of  Abraham '  is  not 
placed  in  contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  race  of 
men,  but  to  angels. 

17.  Wherefore  ...  it  behooved  him — 
(tvhcnce  he  was  bound  by  Hie  work  of  deliver- 
ance which  he  had  undertaken :  it  was  what 
he  owed  to  the  nature  of  the  enterprise)  in  all 


things  ...  to  be  made  like  unto  his 
brethren.  'In  all  things,'  and,  therefore,  in 
the  assumption  of  flesh  and  blood.  The  reas- 
oning is  elliptical.  Its  exact  import  is:  AVhence, 
as  he  was  bound  in  all  things  to  be  a.«similated 
to  his  brethren,  therefore  he  must  take  human' 
nature,  with  all  its  infirmities,  including  lia- 
bility to  temptation  and  death.  The  preceding 
idea  of  the  incarnation  and  death  is  broadened 
by  the  'all  things'  (Kora  TtivTa),  so  as  to  open 
the  way  for  the  idea — not  merely  of  a  com- 
plete and  perfect  Saviour  in  his  death,  but  of 
a  perfect,  living  High  Priest.  That  he  mi^ht 
be  (^become)  a  merciful  {cotnpassionate)  and 
faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining 
to  God.  The  term  'become'  ajiplies  not  only 
to  Christ's  becoming  a  high  priest  (and,  as  such, 
compassionate  and  faithful),  but  also  a  com- 
passionate'ii\g\\  Priest;  because,  although  he 
was  previously  compassionate — and,  in  fact, 
his  compassion  dictated  his  incarnation  and 
his  becoming  a  High  Priest — j-et  we  might  say 
that  the  divine  compassion  evinced  in  originat- 
ing the  plan  of  redemjjtion  differs  from  the 
human  compassion  requisite  to  the  priestly 
intercession  of  the  glorified  Jews.  The  writer 
conceives  sj'mpathy  and  compassion  as  requi- 
site qualities  of  a  high  priesthood;  and  these 
could  be  possessed  only  by  a  high  priest  taken 
from  ainong  men,  and  who  shared,  or  had 
shared,  the  frailties  and  sufferings  of  humanity. 
Hence,  merciful  as  Christ  may  have  been  be- 
fore, the  peculiar  form  of  tenderness  here 
conceived  could  spring  only  through  his  incar- 
nation. It  is  the  com  passion  of  the  .sy  mpath  izing 
High  Priest,  not  the  meicy  of  the  spiritual  God. 
The  position  of  the  original  words  is  peculiar. 
It  is  such  as  to  show  that  while  the  epithet 
'merciful'  looks  back,  and  is  an  inference 
from  the  preceding,  'faithful'  is  an  additional 
thotight  looking  forward  to  the  immediately 
following  discussion.  Such  is  one  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  style  of  this  Epistle.  While 
reviewing,  and,  as  it  were,  gathering  up  the 
results  of  a  preceding  discussion,  it  introduces, 
as  if  accidentally,  what  serves  as  a  transition 


1  Aq  TTou,  "  5'ou  know,  I  suppose,"  "  doubtless,"  appeals 
to  a  well-known  fact,  and  is  a  particle  at  once  of  em- 
phasis, vivacity,  and  modesty  j  the  jrov,  perhaps,  I  sup- 


pose, softening  the  force  of  the  i>i ;  not  implying  doubt, 
but  removing  the  appearance  of  dogmatism.  It  is 
in  no  way  represented  by  "  verily." 


Ch.  IL] 


HEBREWS. 


43 


18  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted, 
he  is  able  lo  succour  them  that  are  tempted. 


18  make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  i)Coi)le.  '  For 
2 in  that  he  himself  hath  sutl'ered  being  iciujttcd,  he 
is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  templed. 


1  Gr.  For  having  been  himtel/  tempted  in  that  wherein  he  hath  suffered '2  Or,  wherein. 


to  that  which  follows,  and  makes  the  parts  of 
the  discourse,  as  it  were,  gripe  into  each  other. 
'Faithful'  (77i<rTd«),  not  here  merely  '  worthy 
of  confidence,'  'reliable'— hut  rather,  actively 
faithful,  evincing  fidelity.  The  term  'in  things 
pertaining  to  God '  refers  not  merely  to  the 
term  High  Priest,  but  to  the  whole  sentence, 
"that  he  might  become,  in  things  pertaining 
to  God,  a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest." 
To  make  reconciliation  {propitiation)  for 
the  sins  of  the  people.  To  make  propiti- 
ation for  (iKiaKeaeai),  and  hcnce,  as  means  of 
propitiation,  to  expiate,  atone  for.  (In  clas- 
sical use  with  the  accusative,  to  propitiate  a 
jjcrson.)  'The  people,'  used  in  conformity 
with  the  limited  phrase,  'seed  of  Abraham,' 
as  applicable,  properly-,  to  the  Jewish  people, 
but  to  them  as  representatives  of  the  world 
for  whom  the  expiation  was  equally  made. 
Christ  came  as  the  Deliverer  of  Israel,  but,  in 
Israel,  as  the  Deliverer  of  the  world.  He  died 
to  e.xpiate  the  sins  of  the  people,  but,  in  the 
people,  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ,  at  the 
dose  of  this  discussion  of  his  superiority  to 
the  angels,  as  alio  of  that  of  his  superiority  to 
Moses,  has  its  evident  purpose.  It  brings  for- 
ward from  time  to  time,  and  keeps  under  the 
reader's  eye,  that  which  was  to  be  tiie  central 
theme  of  the  Epistle,  as  it  was  the  vital  feature 
of  the  New  Dispensation,  the  intercessory 
high  priesthood  of  Christ,  a  high  priesthood 
commencing  in  his  offering  of  himself  as  a 
spotless  sin-offering  to  God,  and  consum- 
mated in  his  entrance,  with  his  own  blood, 
into  the  heavenly  Holy  of  holies,  there  to 
appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us. 

!8  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  snf- 
fered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  suc- 
cour them  that  are  tempted.  The  passage 
admits  of  various  constructions,  which,  in 
the  main,  but  slightly  modify  the  sense.  'In 
that,'  or,  wherein,  render  well  the  Greek 
{ev  &).  The  ideas  are  not  very  widely  apart,  as 
the  one  (' wherein ')  circumscribes  his  power 
to  succor  within  the  sphere  of  his  experience 
of  temptation  and  suffering;  and  the  other 
('in  that')  makes  his  power  to  succor  depend- 
ent on  that  experience.     The  difference  is  but 


slight.  Again,  the  first  clause  may  be  ren- 
dered (with  Delilzsch),  "For  after  being 
himself  tempted  in  that  he  has  suffered,  or  in 
his  experience  of  suffering";  or  (as  Liine- 
mann  and  Moll),  "  For  in  that  he  has  suffered, 
being  himself  tempted";  or,  as  seems  to  me 
more  natural,  '  For  in  that  he  has  himself  suf- 
fered, being  tempted,  he  is  able,'  etc.  The  ren- 
dering of  Delitzsch  mtikesa  l)r()ader  distinction 
between  the  'suffering'  and  the  'temptation' 
than  do  the  others,  and  throws  greater  stress 
on  the  temptation  apart  from  the  suffering. 
In  this  I  think  he  errs.  The  suffering  and  the 
temptation  seem  to  me  to  have  each  stood 
prominent  in  the  author's  mind;  or,  rather,  I 
think  it  is  only  at  the  very  close  of  this  verse 
that  the  idea  of  suffering  gradually  passes 
over  into  that  of  temptation.  True,  again, 
the  clause  can  be  read,  'For  in  that  he  has 
suffered,  after  being  himself  tempted,'  thus 
making  the  temptation  distinctly  precede  the 
suffering,  instead  of  being  coincident  with  it, 
and  mainly  constituting  it ;  but  this,  too,  seems 
to  me  less  probable.  'He  is  able'  {&<>varat.) 
refers  simply  to  his  moral  capacity,  produced 
by  his  personal  experience  of  suffering.  'Them 
that  are  tempted' — his  hutnan  brethren,  who 
are  alwaj^s  in  the  condition  of  being  subject 
to  temptation. 

2.    CHRIST    SUPERIOR   TO   MOSES. 

Having  delineated  the  superiority  of  Christ 
to  the  angels,  the  ministerial  revealers  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  author  proceeds  to 
show  his  superiority,  as  founder  of  the  New 
Dispensation,  to  Moses,  the  earthly  founder  of 
the  Old.  Next  follows  an  extended  warning 
and  exhortation  founded  on  this  comparison. 
Then  he  shows  that  the  rest  of  God,  forfeited 
by  ancient  Israel,  is  still  open,  in  a  higher 
form,  to  the  spiritual  Israel.  La?tly  follows 
exhortation  to  heed  the  word  of  God,  and 
transition  to  the  high  priesthood,  the  chief 
topic  of  the  Epistle. 

Ch.  3.  (1)  Christ,  as  Leader  of  the  New 
Testament  Israel  and  Founder  of  the  New 
Testament  house  of  God,  greater  than  Moses, 
leader  of  ancient  Israel,  and  founder  of  the 
Old  Testament  house  of  God.     (1-C.) 


44 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  III. 


CHAPTEK  III. 


WHEREFORE, holy  brethren,  partakers  of  the  heav- 
T  t  euly  calling,  consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest 
of  our  profession,  Christ  Jesus; 


1      Wherefore,  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly 
calling,  consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our 


1.  Wherefore  ('6eev,  whence,  a  favorite  par- 
ticle of  inference  with  the  author,  and  by  him 
alwaj's — except,  perhaps,  11  :  19 — used  logi- 
cally, not  locally) — that  is,  in  consideration  of 
the  qualities  thus  found  in  Christ,  his  personal 
greatness  and  his  admirable  fitness  as  a  Sav- 
iour. Holy  brethren.  'Holy,'  an  epithet 
given  here,  perhaps,  with  reference  to  the  idea 
(•^:ii)  of  Christ,  as  Sanctifier,  making  holy 
(ayidioju),  and  his  people  the  sanctified  (ayiaioixe- 
voi.).  It  also,  however,  grows  out  of  the  whole 
topic  of  the  redemption  and  priestly  work  of 
Christ.  It  is  not  so  much  a  term  of  individual 
character  as  of  general  relation,  marking  the 
char:icteristic  of  the  children  of  God  as  such. 
In  their  general  relation  to  Christ  they  are  all 
'holy'  (oiyiot,  sacred,  saints),  while  having 
attained  actual  personal  sanctification  in  very 
difierent  degrees.  The  term  'brethren,'  too, 
we  can  hardly  help  feeling  to  have  here  an 
especial  significance.  While  they  are  'breth- 
ren '  immediately  in  their  relation  to  the 
writer  and  to  each  other,  the  author  yet  seems 
lingering  over  the  term  so  expressive  of  the 
tender  relation  between  the  sons  and  the  Son, 
the  redeemed  and  their  Redeemer.  The  '  holy 
brethren,'  then,  is  the  gathering  up  and  the 
echo  of  all  that  deeply  touching  strain  in  which 
the  author  has  portrayed  the  humiliation  and 
the  redeeming  sufferings  of  Christ.  The  com- 
bination, I  believe,  is  found  only  here.  Par- 
takers of  the  (a)  heavenly  calling.  As 
'holy  brethren'  indicates  the  relation  of  be- 
lievers to  Christ,  as  Kedeemer  and  Sanctifier, 
so  'partakers of  a  heavenly  calling'  refers  to 
their  relation  to  him  as  the  heavenly-commis- 
sioned One,  sent  forth  to  'call'  (xaKelv)  men 
into  his  kingdom.  As  God's  Ambassador,  or 
Apostle,'  he  comes  to  call  men  to  salvation  ; 
as  incarnate  Redeemer  and  High  Priest,  he 
sanctifies  and  saves  them.  The  calling  is 
doubly  'heavenly' — alike  in  its  origin  and 
destination.  They  are  called  frotn  heaven 
and  to  heaven  by  One  who  descended  from 
heaven  to  conduct  them  thither.     As  such,  he 


exhorts  them:  Consider  —  or.  Contemplate 
(ieaTavorj(TaTe,  Jix  your  mind  v}:)on,  give  careful 
heed  to,  treat  not  with  indifference  or  neglect.) 
As  (2:i)  he  exhorts  his  readers  to  heed  the 
revelations  of  this  Great  Messenger,  so  now, 
in  like  manner,  to  heed  the  Messenger  himself. 
The  exhortation  is  no  merely  formal  one.  His 
readers  have  indicated  a  disposition  to  turn 
away  from,  and  treat  with  indifference  this 
great  Saviour.  He  solemnly  and  impressively 
warns  them  against  it,  and  calls  them  back  to 
a  steadfast  contemplation  of  his  claims.  The 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profes- 
sion (co7ifessioti),  Christ  Jesus.  The  two 
predicates  here  applied  to  Jesus  answer  chias- 
tically  (Delitzsch)  to  the  two  designations  just 
given  to  his  Christian  readers.  In  reversed 
order,  as  'partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling,' 
they  are  to  give  heed  to  the  heavenly  Mes- 
senger (iTToo-ToAo?),  who  was  sent  forth  com- 
missioned {iiTti<jTaKy.4vo%)  to  bring  that  calling, 
with  all  its  consequences  ;  as 'holy  brethren' 
they  are  to  give  heed  to  tlie  High  Priest,  who, 
by  his  sacrifice  and  mediation,  cleansed  their 
sins  and  made  them  sons  of  God.  The  two 
grand  characteristics  in  Christ's  character  and 
work  as  Saviour,  are,  in  the  two  epithets,  preg- 
nantly designated;  his  descent  from  heaven 
as  God's  Ambassador  of  salvation;  his  re- 
ascent  to  heaven  as  man's  interceding  High 
Priest.  In  the  one  feature  he  is  the  divine 
and  divinely  commissioned  organ  of  the  New 
Revelation  ;  in  the  other,  he  is  the  true  high- 
priestly  Sacrifice,  and  Intercessor  before  God. 
In  the  one  character,  he  announces  salvation; 
in  the  other,  he  accomplishes  it.  The  words 
'  o/  our  confession'  belong  to  both  epithets, 
'Apostle'  and  'High  Priest.'  Jesus  is  the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  whom  we  confess  or 
acknowledge.  We  see,  finally,  that  in  the 
designations  applied  to  Christians  and  the 
designations  applied  to  Christ,  all  the  grand 
idetis  of  the  two  preceding  chapters  are  preg- 
nantly summed  up.  The  author  is  prepared 
to  turn  to  another  aspect  of  the  Redeemer's 


1 'Attoo-toAo?,  commissioned  one,  rather  th:in  oyyeAo?, 
tnessenr/ri-,  because  this  term  has  just  lieen  distinctively 
appropriated  to  an  inferior  class  of  lieings,  and  also, 
perhaps,  with  reference  to  that  office  which  had  become 


consecrated  under  the  New  Dispensation.  The  Old 
Testament  had  itsmessengeis,  oyyeAoi ;  the  New  has  its 
apostles,  airdffToAot, 


Ch.  III.] 


HEBREWS. 


45 


2  Who  was  faithful  to  him  that  appointed  biiu,  as 
also  Moses  was J'dUhJ'nl  in  all  his  house. 


2  confession,  even  Jesus;  who  was  faithful  to  him  that 
1  appointed  him,  as  also  was  Moses  in  all  '^  bis  house. 


1  Gr.  made 2  That  is,  God't  house.    See  Num.  xii.  7. 


character,  already  prepared  for  by  the  '  faith- 
ful '  (irio-To?)  just  above. 

2.  Who  was  faithful  to  him  that  ap- 
pointed him,  as  also  Moses  was  faithful 
in  all  his  house.  After  comparing  Christ 
with  the  angels,  the  revealers  of  the  law,  and 
showing  the  reason  of  his  temporary  humili- 
ation below  them,  that  he  might  redeem  a 
people  and  found  a  church  of  God,  it  is  natural 
that  he  should  next  compare  him,  as  the 
Founder  of  that  church,  with  Moses,  the  de- 
liverer and  organizer  of  the  ancient  theocratic 
community.  Moses  and  Aaron  were,  respect- 
ively, the  apostle,  or  commissioned  one,  and 
the  high  priest,  of  the  Israelitish  confession. 
The  people  "were  baptized  to  Moses"  in  the 
Red  Sea;  he  was  their  great  lawgiver  and 
prophet;  he  gave  them  the  law,  and  in  him 
they  trusted  (Johns-.  45);  they  styled  them- 
selves, specially,  his  disciples  (John  9: 29) ;  they 
gloried  in  their  political  relation  to  him,  as 
in  their  lineal  descent  from  Abraham.  It  is, 
hence,  not  arbitrary,  but  natural,  that  Christ 
should  next  be  put  in  contrast  with  Moses; 
the  apostle  of  our  confession  with  the  apostle 
of  the  confession  of  ancient  Israel.  'Who 
was  faithful'  (toi-  ovra  Ttiarov).  The  phrase  is 
predicative,  as  being  faithful,  as  one  who  was 
faithful;  and  the  being  {ovto.)  by  no  means 
(as  Bleek)  marks,  necessarily,  the  time  now 
present  to  the  writer,  and  thus  points  to  Christ's 
present  fidelity  as  High  Priest  in  God's  heav- 
enly house,  but  simply  the  time  indicated  by 
the  connection  which,  as  shown  by  the  word 
'Jesus,'  and  by  the  whole  train  of  thought,  is 
that  of  our  Lord's  sojourn  on  earth.  Here  he 
came  as  God's  'apostle,'  ambassador,  to  pro- 
claim salvation,  to  call  out  his  people  from  the 
spiritual  Egypt,  and,  by  his  appointment  and 
his  obedience  to  his  will,  to  found  a  new  theoc- 
racy', to  inaugurate  a  spiritual  kingdom,  to 
rear  a  spiritual  house,  over  against  the  national 
theocracy',  the  temporal  kingdom,  the  ritual 


household  of  ancient  Israel.  To  this  work 
God  appointed  {made,  ttoitjo-o?)  him,  as  he 
aj>pointed  Moses  to  the  founding  of  the  old 
theocracy. >  The  author  (as  conjectured  by 
Bleek,  followed  by  Delitzsch)  has  probably  in 
mind  1  Sam.  12:6,  "The  Lord  that  made 
(that  is,  appointed,  jroiijcras)  Moses  and  Aaron" 
(compare  ver.  8),  "  sent  {forth,  a-n«jT(.i.Kt) 
Moses  and  Aaron."  He  then  recurs  to  Num. 
12  :  7,  which  was  probably  in  his  mind  when 
he  used  the  word  'faithful,'  and  which  again 
maj'  have  suggested  the  passage  from  Samuel, 
and  adds,  as  also  Moses  {was  faithful)  in 
all  his  house.  Some  interpreters  put  a  com- 
ma after  "Moses,"  and  refer  the  words,  "in 
all  his  house,"  to  Christ,  which  the  language 
of  Numbers  scarcely  favors.  It  reads,  "My 
servant  Moses  is  not  so,  whom  I  have  found 
faithful  in  all  mine  house."  The  citation, 
too,  shows  that  the  "  his  "  refers  not  to  Moses, 
but  to  God.  The  elliptical  j)assage,  then,  insti- 
tutes a  comparison  between  Jesus  and  Moses, 
in  their  relation  to  the  house  or  household 
over  which  God  had  respectively  appointed 
them.  The  relation  is,  thus  far,  one  of  equalitj'. 
Moses  had  been  faithful  in  all  God's  house:  so 
Jesus  was  faithful  in  all  God's  house.  It  is 
important  to  determine  whether  it  is  one  house 
or  two  ot  which  the  author  speaks,  and  in  or 
over  which  Moses  and  Jesus  were  both  faithful. 
Most  interpreters,  misled,  I  think,  by  the  ellip- 
tical language,  have  confounded  the  two  houses 
into  one,  to  the  serious  darkening  of  the  pas- 
sage. The  houses,  it  seems  to  me,  were  cer- 
tainly two — Moses  led  out  the  people  of  God 
from  the  temporal,  Christ  from  the  spiritual, 
Egj'pt.  Moses  was  God's  ancient  apostle  to 
Israel,  of  temporal  salvation  ;  Christ  his  recent 
Apostle  of  spiritual  salvation .  Moses  founded, 
by  God's  express  appointment,  the  ancient 
household  of  Israel,  with  its  laws,  ritual,  and 
ministry;  Christ  founded,  hy  like  divine  ap- 
pointment,   the    household    of  the    spiritual 


1  The  admissibleness  of  taking  itoi.fiv,  make,  used 
absolutely,  without  a  second  accusative,  as  appoint, 
constitute,  is  questioned  by  many.  They  refer  it,  there- 
fore, either  to  God's  making,  producing  of  the  Son,  in 
his  eternal  generation  (as  Bleek,  Liineniann),  or  (as 
Athanasius,  Ambrose,  and  Kurtz)  to  his  human  birth 
iu  his  incarnation.    Delitzsch  applies  it  to  a  figurative 


creation,  or  constituting,  on  the  stage  of  history.  Many 
of  tlic  interpreters— taking  it  in  the  sense  of  a|)poiiit- 
ing,  establishing— have  supplied  a  word  (as  aitoaroKov, 
a|)ostle)  after  n-oirjcra?.  On  the  whole,  I  think  we  must 
leave  it  doubtful  between  'making  him,  'giving  hiiu 
bis  incarnate  life,'  and  '  appointing '  hiiu. 


46 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  III. 


3  For  this  man  was  counted  worthv-  of  more  glory 
thaii  Moses,  inasmuch  as  he  who  hath  builded  the 
house  hath  more  honour  than  the  house. 


3  For  he  hath  heen  counted  worthy  ot  more  glory  than 
Moses,  by  so  much  as  he  that  i  built  the  house  hath 

4  more  honour  than   the   house.     For  every  house  is 


1  Or,  established. 


Israel,  with  its  laws,  rites,  and  ministry.  Each 
household  thus  founded  by  comtnand  of  God 
was  a  house  of  God.  Moses  was  faithful  in 
all  God's  house,  in  or  over  which  he  was 
ap[)ointed ;  Christ,  in  like  manner,  in  and 
over  all  God's  New  Testament  house.  I  do 
not  see  how  we  can  reasonably  doubt  that  the 
reference  is  to  two  houses,  and  not  to  one  ;  and 
that  tiie  coin])arison  is  between  two  divinely 
ajipointed  earthly  founders,  each  of  his  re- 
spective house.  The  name  'Jesus,'  the  words 
'that  appointed  him,'  the  words  'whose 
house  are  we'  (marking  a  new  spiritual 
house),  show  the  nature  of  the  parallel.  It  is 
run  between  Moses  and  the  incarnate  Jesus; 
and  any  reference  to  the  Eternal  Logos,  as 
founding  "the  church  in  the  wilderness,"  in 
which  Moses  was  a  servant,  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. Christ,  as  the  Eternal  Logos,  was, 
doubtless,  the  God  of  Sinai  and  the  Jewish 
Theocrac3',  as  he  was  the  "Word  of  the  Cre- 
ation ;  but  that  is  here  out  of  the  scope  of  the 
writer.  He  is  considering  not  the  Logos  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  the  Jesus,  the  Incar- 
nate Word  of  the  New,  and,  in  this  relation, 
comparing  him  with  Moses.  In  the  first  place, 
he  isthroughoutbringingthe  New  Dispensation 
alongside  of  the  Old  ;  Jesus,  the  Bringer  of  sal- 
vation alongside  of  the  angels;  Jesus,  the  New 
Testameiit  High  Priest,  alongside  of  Aaron; 
and,  therefore,  assuredly  Jesus,  the  Founder  of 
the  NewTestamentchurch,alongsideofthe01d 
Testament  theocrac\'.  To  this  points  the  name 
'Jesus'  that  ushers  in  the  comparison  ;  to  this 
the  'being  faithful,'  which  can  only  refer  to 
Jesus  in  his  humiliation  (his  fidelity  as  pre- 
incarnate  Logos  could  never  come  into  ques- 
tion) ;  to  this  the  word  made  (irottjcra?.  whether 
understood  as  appointed  or  produced),  for  of 
the  appointment  of  the  pre-existent  Logos  we 
have  no  trace;  and,  finallj',  to  this,  the  house 
(ver.6)  which  Jcsus  founded,  a  spiritual  edifice 
of  actual  believers.  In  these  two  houses,  they 
were  alike  faithful.  Thus  far  the  similarity  and 
apparent  equality  ;  but  afterward,  the  real  dif- 
ference, that  Moses,  though  seemingly  a  head, 
was,  in  reality,  but  a  servant,  and  Chri.st,  though 
temporarily  a  servant,  was,  in  reality,  a  Head, 


and  sustained  a  like  relation  to  Moses  as  does 
the  head  and  founder  to  the  household;  which 
does  not  at  all  require  that  they  be  in  the 
same  household. 

3.  For — either  explicative  (as  De  AVette), 
or  unfolding  the  last  thought  of  the  preceding 
verse,  or  better,  perhaps,  referringback  to  "con- 
sider" (ver.i),  and  finding  a  ground  for  that — 
this  man  (^this  perso7iaffe)  Avas  {has  been) 
counted  worthy  olmore  glory  than  3Ioses. 
Not,  as  some,  the  glory  which  overspread  the 
face  of  Moses  when  he  descended  from  the 
mount,  though  we,  perhaps,  can  scarcely 
avoid  assuming  a  covert  ctmparison  between 
the  glory  which  transfigured  the  face  of  Moses 
on  Sinai,  and  the  glory  which  wrapt  the  whole 
person  of  Jesus  (in  the  presence  of  Moses) 
on  Mount  Hermon.  It  is  safe,  however,  and 
amply  sufficient,  to  refer  it  to  the  immeasurably 
higher  exaltation  in  dignity  and  glory  of  the 
Founder  of  the  New  Covenant,  advanced  to 
supreme  dominion,  than  was  accorded  to  the 
founder  of  the  Old.  Inasmuch  (as  much) 
as  he  who  hath  builded  the  house,  etc. 
(ZJy  how  miich  m.ore  honor  than  the  house 
hath  he  that  founded  it).  From  this  it  has 
been  hastily  concluded  that  INIoses  was  the 
house,  and  Christ  the  Founder  of  the  house 
of  which  Moses  was  the  subordinate  head; 
that  Christ,  therefore,  appears  as  the  Eternal 
Logos,  and  as  such  infinitel3'  superior  to  Moses. 
But  this  mistakes  the  entire  j)urpose  of  the 
author,  who  is  comparing  Closes  and  Jesus 
each  in  the  earthlj'  sphere  in  which  God  had 
placed  him.  In  this  sphere  they  first  appear 
on  an  equality,  each  faithful  in  h.is  allotted 
province.  But  the  author  now  states,  in 
general  terms,  the  difference.  Equal,  ap])ar- 
ently,  there  existed  between  them,  in  reality, 
the  dis))arity  which  exists  between  a  house- 
hold and  its  founder  and  head.  It  by  no 
means  follows  that  they  were  in,  or  over,  the 
same  house;  but  that  belonging  to  diflTerent 
houses,  and  sustaining  the  same,  or  a  like, 
relation  to  each,  at  once  of  subordination  and 
headship,  there  was,  in  realitj',  the  utmost 
conceivable  interval  between  them.  How  this 
could  be  is  immediately  stated. 


Ch.  III.] 


HEBREWS. 


47 


4  For  every  house  is  builded  by  some  man ;  but  he 
that  liuilt  all  things  is  (iod. 

5  And  Jloses  v;  lily  uas  laitliful  in  all  his  house  as  a 
servant,  for  a  testimony  ol  those  things  which  were  to 
be  spoken  after; 

6  liut  Christ  as  a  son  over  his  own  house;   whose 


1  builded  by  some  one;  but  he  who  i  built  all  Ihinga 

5  is  (iod.     And  Moses  indeed  was  (ailhfiil   in  all  -hisj 
house  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony  of  those  things 

6  which  were  afici  ward  tobesi)oken:  but  t'hri»t  as  a 
son,  over  -  his  house ;  whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold 


1  Or,  ettablisUed 'i  Tliai  is,  God't  Aouse.    See  Num.  xii.  7. 


4.  For  every  house  is  builded  {estab- 
lished, founded)  by  some  man  {one)  ;  but 
he  that  built  (established)  all  things  is 
God.  Tlie.-^e  statements  remind  the  reader 
that  both  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old 
Testament  houses  must  have  had  an  imme- 
diate, subordinate,  apparent  founder,  as,  re- 
spectively, Moses  and  Jesus ;  and  one  ultimate 
and  Supremo  Founder,  to  whom  both  were 
responsible,  and  toward  whom  fidelity  could 
be  predicated  of  thein  ;  namely,  God.  There 
is,  then,  in  regard  to  both  of  the  houses,  a  double 
founding — one  instrumental  and  subordinate, 
the  other  absolute  and  sujireme.  So  Moses 
established,  instrumentally,  the  theocracy,  the 
house  of  God,  in  the  wilderness ;  but  God 
established  it  supremely.  So  .lesus  organized 
the  New  Testament  theocracy,  the  more  spir- 
itual house  of  God,  the  church  of  believers ; 
but  this,  again,  is  not  his  house — it  is  the  house 
of  God.  God's  prerogative  of  being  the  Uni- 
versal Founder,  is  no  more  intermitted  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  than  of  Moses.  Almost  uni- 
formly in  the  New  Testament,  we  read  of  the 
church,  the  house,  the  people,  the  sons — not 
of  Christ,  but  of  God.  And  to  both  the  fidelity 
and  the  glory  we  have  striking  testimony, 
"I  have  finished  the  work  tvhich  thoii  gavest 
me  to  do ;  and  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou 
me  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was."  (John  17 : 4.5.)  And 
while  it  is  thus  shown  how  there  could  be  in 
each  case  a  twofold  founder;  how  Moses  and 
Jesus  could  be  both  at  the  head  of  their  respect- 
ive houses,  and  yet  both  be  subordinate  and 
both  faithful ;  it  also  opens  the  waj^  for  affirm- 
ing the  above  alleged  inequaliti',  in  that  one 
can  be  finally  identified  with  God,  the  Abso- 
lute Founder,  and  the  other  reinains  a  merely 
instrumental  founder,  and  sinks,  really,  into 
the  organization  of  which  he  is  apparently  the 
head.  With  this  preparation,  the  author  pro- 
ceeds to  draw  out  sharply  the  difference  hinted 
at  in  vcr.  3,  and  shown  to  be  possible  in  ver.  4. 

5,  6.  And  Moses  verily  (rather,  indeed) 
was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant, 
for  a  testimony  of  those  things  which 


were  to  be  spoken  after;  but  Christ  as  a 
Son  over  his  own  {his)  house.  Each  had 
founded  a  house  subordinately,  of  which  the 
Absolute  Founder,  iind,  therefore,  the  Supreme 
Possessor,  wasGod.  What,  then,  wasthediffei- 
ence?  It  was  one  lying  in  the  intrinsic  nature 
of  the  two  personages.  The  subordination  of 
Moses  to  the  Supreme  Founder  had  been  abso- 
lute, as  well  as  apparent.  Christ  iiad  founded 
his  house  in  real  subordination,  but  also  in 
essentiiil  equality;  Moses  had  organized  the 
Old  Testament  theocracy  both  apparently  and 
really'  as  a  servant.  Christ  had  instituted  the 
New  Testament  church  apparently  as  a  ser- 
vant, but  really  as  a  Son.  Moses,  therefore, 
elevated  as  he  was,  chosen  leader  and  head  of 
ancient  Israel,  into  whose  allegiance  they  had 
undergone  the  profound  baptism  of  the  Ked 
Sea,  was,  after  all,  but  in  the  house  of  God, 
and  a  part  of  it.  Christ,  although  sunk  to 
the  depths  of  humiliation,  was,  after  all,  over 
the  house  of  God,  and  its  real  Head.  Moses, 
apparent  founder  and  head  of  the  house, 
was  but  a  part  of  the  household  ;  Christ,  ap- 
parently a  Servant  of  the  servants,  rises,  as 
the  Son  of  God  into  equality  with  the  Founder, 
and  becomes,  in  the  last  analysis,  supreme,  as 
well  as  subordinate,  heavenly,  as  well  as 
earthly,  divine,  as  well  as  human.  Builder  of 
the  New  Testament  house.  He  has  as  much 
higher  honor  than  Moses  as  the  Founder  of 
the  house  has  more  honor  than  the  house. 
The  seeming  paradox  is  e.xplained  by  the 
double  nature  of  the  Wondrous  Per.sonage; 
be  is  at  once  Moses'  equal  and  Closes'  head, 
as  he  was  David's  Son  and  Dtivid's  Lord. 
We  have  yet  another  point  of  contrast.  Moses 
was  in  a  carnal,  typical  house  ;  Christ  was  over 
a  living  and  spiritual  one.  Mo.ses  was  faithful 
as  'a  testimony  of  those  things  which  should 
be  spoken,'  not  (as,  superficially.  Block,  De 
Wette,  Liinemann)  of  the  things  to  be  spoken 
to  him,  the  commands  to  be  given  him  regard- 
ing the  regulations  of  the  Theocracy,  but  of 
the  things  which  were  to  be  spoken  in  a 
future  time — the  New  Testament  revelation 
by  Christ.     Thus  Moses'  position  was  merely 


48 


HEBREWS. 


[Oh.  III. 


house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  coiifideuce  and  the 
rejoicing  of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end. 


fast  our  boldness  and  the  glorying  of  our  hope  firm 


tj'pical  and  preparatory — he  had  the  shadow 
of  which  Christ  brought  the  substance;  he,  like 
John,  merely  bore  testimony  to  the  great 
truths  afterward  to  be  uttered.  The  r(;al 
house  of  God,  adds  the  writer,  are  we,  if, 
etc.,  Christian  believers,  the  sons  of  God  by 
a  new  and  spiritual  birth — these  are  the  true 
house  of  God,  living  stones  built  on  the  foun- 
dation of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  with 
Christ  as  the  chief  corner  stone,  the  whole  a 
spiritual  house,  growing  up  into  a  holy  temple 
in  the  Lord.  So  (with  Ebrard  and  Delitzsch) 
I  understand  the  two  last  clauses  as  setting 
over  against  each  other  the  typical  institutions 
of  Moses  and  the  spiritual  church  of  Christ. 
Tlie  points  of  contrast,  then,  between  Moses 
and  Christ,  are  these:  (1)  Moses  founded  the 
house  of  God  subordinately  as  a  servant; 
Christ  founded  it  supremely  as  a  Son.  (2) 
Moses  was  in  it  and  a  part  of  it;  Christ  was 
ove?"  it  as  its  Lord.  (3)  Moses  founded  a  typ- 
ical house,  and  held  a  merely  preparatory 
relation ;  Christ  founded  the  true  spiritual 
house  of  regenerate  believers.  He  might  have 
added  a  fourth — that  Moses  was  imperfect  in 
his  obedience  and  fidelity;  while  Jesus,  as 
a  mere  human  messenger  working  out  his 
Father's  will,  was  absolute  in  perfection. 
But  this  the  writer  cared  not  to  press.  He 
was  dealing  not  with  the  accidental,  but  the 
inherent  and  necessary  differences  between 
Christ  and  Moses;  not  those  which  depended 
on  different  degrees  of  fidelity,  but  those 
which  no  amount  of  fidelity  in  Moses  could 
have  obliterated.  Moreover,  while  exhibiting 
the  inferiority  of  Moses,  he  yet  shows  no  dis- 
position to  disparage  him.  He  deals  with  him 
tenderly  and  lovingly.  He  calls  him  not  a  slave 
(SovKoi),  or,  a  liouschokl  servant  (oiice'Trjs),  hered- 
itary or  purchased,  but  a  voluntary,  willing 
attendant  on  another  {Ofpinuv).  The  elliptical 
clause,  '  But  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  house,' 
is  variously  filled  up.  By  some  (Bleek,  De 
"Wette\  '  But  Christ  (is  faithful)  as  a  Son  over 
his  house  '  (is  faithful):  but,  as  most  clearly, 
'his'  refers  to  God — over  God's  house — this 
construction  is  inadmissible.  Others  con- 
struct: But  Christ  (is  faithful)  as  a  Son  over 


his  house ;  or,  But  Christ,  as  a  Son  (is  faithful), 
over  his  house.  Others  (as  Delitzsch,  Moll), 
But  Christ,  as  a  Son,  is  over  his  house — the 
idea  of  fidelity  at  first  suggested  by  his  lowly 
position  as  an  earthly  Founder  now  giving 
place  to  that  oi  autJiority  as  a  Son  in  view  of 
his  higher  nature.  I  see  no  ground  of  decid- 
ing positively  between  them.  Either  answers 
all  the  purposes  of  the  argument. 

Our  explanation  assumes  that  the  house  of 
God  is  not  here  spoken  of  as  continuous,  but  as 
twofold.  The  New  Testament  people  of  God 
are  certainly  the  people  of  God  in  historical 
continuity  with  the  Old.  The  church  of  Mount 
Zion  (12:22)  is,  in  a  limited  sense,  identical 
with  the  congregation  at  the  foot  of  Mount 
Sinai ;  and  the  undeveloped  institution  of  Ju- 
daism may  be  conceived  as  having  blossomed 
forth  into  the  full  flower  of  Christianity  ;  yet, 
in  a  truer  and  deeper  sense,  these  households 
and  people  are  widely'  different,  and  the  differ- 
ence was  manifest  when  Judaism  persecuted 
Christianity,  and  had  to  be  broken  up  and 
swept  out  of  the  way  before  Christianity 
could  triumph.  Here  it  suits  the  author's 
purpose  to  bring  out  the  difference  ;  as  before 
he  contrasted  the  revelations  made  respect- 
ively through  the  Son  and  through  angels,  so 
now,  the  two  households  organized  respect- 
ively by  the  Son  and  by  Moses.  Whose 
house  are  we,  etc.— rather.  We  are,  if  we 
maintain  the  boldness  and  the  glorying^  of  our 
hope,  fir "tn  unto  the  end.  'Whose  house'  — 
that  is,  God's  house,  not  Christ's.  'We'  stands 
representatively  here  for  all  believers,  yet  in- 
tended to  point  his  readers  to  their  own  special 
prerogative  above  their  ancestors.  They,  he 
tells  them,  are  that  house — of  course,  part  of 
that  huuse — which  this  greater  than  Moses, 
this  Son  of  God,  founded  and  presides  over — 
the  true  spiritual  house  in  antithesis  to  the 
tj'pical  one  founded  by  Moses,  disciples  of 
him  of  whom  Moses  was  but  a  witness.  But 
the  writer  adds  a  condition.  New  Testament 
believers  are  this  spiritual  house — 'we,'  as 
such,  are  part  of  it,  on  condition  that  we 
prove  ourselves  believers;  that  we  establish 
our  claim  by  maintaining  our  fidelity  to  the 


'  Tlapprftria,  boldness,  assurance,  assured  confidence ;  Kavxniia,  glorying,  exultation — not  »cov'x»)<ris,  the  act,  but 
rather  its  result  or  object. 


Ch.  III.] 


HEBREWS. 


49 


7  Wherefore  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saitb,  To  day  if  ye  I    7  unto  the  end.    Wherefore,  even  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  hear  his  voice,  suilh, 

I  To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice, 


end.  The  wavering  condition  of  his  readers 
prompts  this  sudden  turn,  while  the  language 
is  suggested  by  tlie  context.  Ancient  Israel 
showed  itself  not  to  be  the  true  house  of 
God ;  those  who  escaped  from  Egypt  through 
Moses  did  not  remain  steadfast.  The  boldness 
and  exultant  hope  with  which  they  commenced 
their  pilgrimage  gave  way ;  they  became  faint- 
hearted and  cowardly,  feared  the  giants  in  the 
land,  and  murmured  against  God  until  his 
patience  was  exhausted;  and  he  svvare,  in  his 
wrath,  that  they  should  not  enter  Canaan. 
See  Numbers,  ch.  14;  Deuteronomy,  ch.  1. 
It  was  precisely  in  connection  witii  these  faint- 
hearted terrors  that  God  excluded  his  ancient 
people  from  their  inheritance,  and  to  this  may 
be  the  present  reference.  The  terms,  of  course, 
are  raised  to  their  higher  spiritual  meaning. 

(2)  Solemn  warning  to  the  readers  against 
repeating  the  rebellion  of  their  fathers  and 
excluding  themselves  from  God' s  Sabbatic  rest^ 
as  the  rebels  tinder  Moses  forfeited  the  rest  of 
Canaan.     (7-19.) 

7.  This  brief  but  decisive  statement  of  the 
superiority  of  Christ  to  Muses  is  followed  by 
a  practical  warning  similar  to  that  deduced 
from  Ills  superiority  to  the  angels.  Tlie  law 
revealed  through  them  was  held  valid,  and 
all  disobedience  and  neglect  sorely  punished. 
How  much  more,  neglect  of  the  salvation  re- 
vealed through  Christ!  So  the  people  who 
had  been  baptized  into  allegiance  to  Moses, 
and  organized  by  him  into  a  household  of 
God,  a  theocratic  community,  had.  from  their 
refusal  to  hearken  to  him,  failed  of  the  prom- 
ised rest,  and  perished  in  the  wilderness.  How 
much  more  dangerous,  disobedience  to  our 
greater  Head,  who  is  conducting  us  to  the  true 
rest  of  God!  Such  the  substance;  but  the 
form  of  the  exhortation  is  determined  by  a 
long  and  apposite  quotation  from  the  Psalms, 
which  introduces  some  mostpertinentthoughts, 
and  is  allowed  to  control  the  drift  of  the  entire 
passage.  Wherefore.  With  this  we  may 
suppose  the  writer  was  going  on — as  ch.  2:  1 
seq. — to  admonish  his  readers  of  the  terrible 
consequences  of  refusing  to  obey  this  greater 
than  Moses;  but  the  language  of  the  Psalm 
occurs  to  him,  and  his  warning  conforms  itself 
to  it,  including,  however,  all  the  substance  of 


that  thought.     As  the  Holy  Ghost  saith, 

etc. — according  as  saith  the  Holy  Spirit,  to- 
day, if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  harden  not 
your  hearts.  The  long  citation  (ver.  7-i3)  is  from 
Ps.  95  :  7-11,  in  which  the  Psalmist  of  the  time 
of  David  warns  the  Israelites  against  repeating 
the  transgressions  of  their  fathers  in  the  wil- 
derness. Of  course,  it  is  equally  apposite  to 
the  purpose  of  our  author,  as  applicable  now 
as  then.  The  first  question  is  as  to  the  mode 
of  completing  the  construction.  There  have 
been  suggested:  (1)  'Wherefore,  as  saith  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to-day  .  .  .  Take  heed' — See  to 
it  (^MTtiTf,  ver.  12),  the  answering  clause  to 
'wherefore,'  according  as  (ii6,  icafluis)  being 
found  in  'See  to  it'  (/SAtirtTe).  (2)  'Where- 
fore (as  saith. the  Holy  Spirit)  to-day,  if  ye 
hear,'  etc.,  'harden  not,'  etc.,  the  author  thus 
adopting  the  Holy  Spirit's,  or  the  Psalmist's, 
exhortation  as  his  own.  (3)  'Wherefore  (act, 
or  be  admonished),  according  as  saitii  the 
Holy  Spirit,'  the  sentence  being  completed  by 
assuming  and  supplying  an  ellipsis  at  the 
outset.  To  neither  of  these  constructions  can 
I  see  any  insuperable  objection.  The  objection 
to  the  first,  from  the  long  interval  between  the 
'according  as'  ()ca9ois)  and  the  answering  clause, 
'See  to  it'  (^^tirtTe),  has  weight,  doubtless,  but 
is  by  no  means  decisive.  A  stronger  objection, 
perhaps,  is  the  use  of  'according  as'  (Ka.eu><:) 
when  we  should  expect  'as'  (is);  and  the 
abruptness  of  the  whole  construction  makes  it, 
on  the  whole,  improbable.  An  objection  to 
the  second  is  that,  as  a  large  part  of  the  quo- 
tation is  the  language  of  God  himself,  the 
author  could  hardly  give  it  in  his  own  name. 
To  this  we  might  reply  that  the  author  guards 
his  language  by  introducing  it  with  "as  the 
H0I3'  Spirit  saith  '  ;  and,  secondly,  that  he 
merely  follows  the  changes  of  the  Psalmist, 
who,  beginning  with  an  exhortation  in  hia 
own  name — "if  je  hear  his  voice" — imper- 
ceptibly slides  over  to  the  language  of  Jeho- 
vah. To  the  third  construction  I  know  no 
valid  objection,  as  the  ellipsis  is  suflSciently  in 
accordance  with  the  usages  of  language,  and 
especially  of  the  flexible  Greek;  and  between 
this  and  the  second  I  see  no  decisive  ground  of 
choice.  I  incline  to  the  third,  under  the  belief 
that  the  language,  'as  the  Holy  Spirit  saith,' 


50 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  III. 


8  Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  in 
tlie  day  of  temptation  in  the  wiloerness: 

9  When  your  lathers  teuipleU  uie,  proved  me,  and 
saw  my  works  forty  years. 

10  Wherefore  I  was  grieved  with  that  generation,  and 


Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation, 
Like  as  in  the  day  ol  the  trial  in  the  wilderness, 
1  Where  your  fathers  tried  me  by  proving  me, 
And  saw  my  works  forty  years. 
Wherefore  I  was  disjjleased  with  this  generation, 


1  Or,  Wherewith. 


indicates  that  what  follows  is  a  simple  quota- 
tion, and,  therefore,  that  the  author's  adoption 
of  it  must  be  previously  understood.  [The 
first  constructioti'is  adopted  by  Calvin,  Bleek, 
Liznemann  ;  the  second  by  Ebrard,  Delitzsch  ; 
the  third  by  Tholuck,  De  Wette.]  'To-day  ' 
is,  with  the  Pialmist,  probably  put  for  the 
whole  period  which  has  followed  upon  the 
Mosaic  Era,  contemplated  as  another  possible 
period  of  national  salvation,  but  which  our 
author  refers  specially  to  the  time  of  New 
Testament  deliverance.  Indeed,  the  Psalm 
itself,  under  the  inspiring  Spirit,  may  have 
had  a  prophetic  character;  and,  in  its  original 
import,  as  well  as  in  its  present  application, 
have  referred  to  the  time  of  waiting  and  trial 
between  the  appearing  of  Christ  for  salvation, 
and  his  coming  in  vengeance  to  break  up  the 
Jewish  polity,  and  destroy  the  nation.  At  all 
events,  that  '  to-day'  now  existed.  The  Jew- 
ish people,  previously  incorrigible,  had  now 
another  chance  to  avert  their  threatened  doom. 
'If  ye  shall  hear  his  voice'  (literally,  shall 
have  heard;  not,  'If  ye  will  hear,'  which 
totally  changes  the  meaning,  as  in  the  Com- 
mon. Version).  If  his  voice  reaches  your 
ears,  and  by  clear  implication  brings  you 
another  promise,  or  proffer  of  rest  and  of 
salvation.  This  is  evident  from  the  following, 
'harden  not  your  hearts,'  and  is  made  still 
clearer  by  the  subsequent  deduction.  The 
author  finds  in  this  (ver.  is;  4:  ?)  a  proof  of  a 
still  remaining  promise  to  enter  into  God's 
rest.  The  voice,  then,  is  a  voice  of  glad 
tidings  and  proffered  salvation.  It  is  a  re- 
newal, under  a  more  spiritual  import,  of  the 
glad  promise  made  to  ancient  Israel,  and  as- 
sumed by  the  Psalmist  as  certain  to  be  made, 
but  which  our  author  can  assume  to  have  been 
actually  made.  Christ  has  come  and  renewed 
to  the  people  the  proffer  of  the  rest  of  God. 
(The  Hebrew,  however,  expresses  it  as  a  wish, 
'  Might  you  hear  his  voice ! '  The  quotation  is 
from  the  Scptuagint.) 

8.  Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the 
provocation,  in  the  day  of  temptation  in 
the  wilderness.  In  the  original,  we  have, 
"As  in  Meribah  (Num.  20:13),  as  in  the  day  of 


Massah  (Exod.  n:7)  in  the  wilderness."'  Our 
author  follows  the  Septuagirt,  taking  the 
proper  names  in  their  etymological  signifi- 
cation— 'Meribah,'  embitterment,  angering, 
provocation;  'Massah,'  temptation — and  treats 
the  words,  '  in  the  day  of  temptation,'  as  fixing 
the  time  of  the  embitterment  or  provocation. 
He  deviates  in  this  from  the  Septuagint,  as 
well  as  the  original;  but  the  deviation  is  un- 
essential. 'Temptation'  is  here  taken,  act- 
ively, of  tempting  God. 

9.  When  (properly.  Where— \x\  the  wilder- 
ness) your  fathers  tempted  me,  proved  me 
(or,  vnth proving),  and  saw  my  works — my 
miraculouft  works,  oisplays  of  power  on  their 
behalf,  whether  in  bestowing  mercies  or  in 
punishing  their  sins — (during)  forty  years. 
The  author  has  transferred  this  clause  from 
the  following  verb  ("during  forty  years  was 
I  angry")  to  this  connection,  and  placed  after 
it  the  particle,  wherefore  (Sid),  making  the 
divine  anger  come  rather  at  the  close  of  the 
forty  3'ears,  than  continue  through  it.  He 
also  reads  'this'  (ravrji)  for  'that'  (cic«Vjj)  ; 
thus : 

10.  Wherefore  I  Avas  grieved  (angry) 
with  that  (this)  generation.  These  changes 
can  scarcely  be  without  a  purpose.  They  are 
probably  intended  to  give  the  passage  a  more 
direct  and  explicit  reference  to  his  own  day, 
and,  apparently,  to  point  to  the  fort^'  years' 
interval  between  Christ's  ascension  and  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  a  period  now,  prob- 
ablj'^,  just  at  its  close.  The  original  represents 
God  as,  during  forty  years,  displaying  his 
wrath  toward  the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  It 
is  more  to  the  purpose  of  our  author  to  point 
to  thesignal  display  of  God's  wrath  impending 
at  the  close  of  this  forty  years'  time  of  waiting. 
It  is  thus  a  solemn  reminder  to  the  Jews  that 
their  probation,  and  the  time  of  the  with- 
holding of  God's  wrath,  is  nearly  over.  It 
is  in  remarkable  confirmation  of  this  view 
that  the  Talmud  and  the  Rabbins  also  had 
— in  connection  with  Psalm  95,  and  the  forty 
3'oars'  sojourn  of  the  Jews  in  the  desert — 
assigned  a  period  of  forty  years  to  the  "daj's 
of  the  Messiah."     The  author  has  evidently 


Ch.  III.] 


HEBREWS. 


61 


said,  They  do  always  err  in  their  heart;  and  they  have 
not  knowQ  luy  wuys. 

11  So  Iswure  iu  my  wrath,  They  shall  not  enter  into 
my  rest. 

12  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there  be  in  any  of  vou 
an  evil  heart  of  unbeliet,  iu  deparliug  from  the  living 
God. 

li  But  exhort  one  another  daily,  while  it  is  called  To 


And  said.  They  do  alway  err  in  their  heart: 
But  they  did  not  know  my  ways; 

11  1  As  I  sware  iu  my  wrath, 

2  They  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest. 

12  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  haply  there  shall  be  in 
any  one  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,  iu  falling 

13  away  from  the  living  God:  but  exhort  one  another 
day  by  day,  so  long  as  it  is  called  To-day ;  lest  any 


1  Or,  So 2  Or.  If  they  shall  enter. 


followed  the  synagogue  in  treating  the  forty 
years  as  typical.  To  sharpen  the  reference, 
he  changes  '^  that  generation'  into  '^  this  gen- 
eration.' This  warning  could  scarcely  fall 
on  unaffected  minds.  And  (I)  said— a  form- 
ula implying  at  once  the  truth  and  the 
weight  of  the  utterance— They  do  always 
err  {are  always  straying)  in  their  heart. 
Straying  in  heart  is  the  fountain  and  essence 
of  all  disobedience.  The  Israelites  began  their 
murmurings  against  God  and  Moses  early 
(Exod.  17),  but  constantly'  repeated  them  ;  proved 
themselves  hard  and  intractable;  and,  finally, 
by  their  unbelief  and  cowardice,  on  the  very 
border  of  the  promised  land  provoked  God  to 
turn  them  back  and  destroy  them.  And 
they,  etc. — or,  But  they  did  not  know  my 
ways.  The  Vatican  text  of  the  Septuagint 
reads,  And  they  {koX  oOtoi),  apparently  a  con- 
tinuation of  what  God  said;  namely,  'And 
they  did  not  know  my  ways.'  The  Alexan- 
drian reading,  '  But  they  knew  not '  (aiToi  Si) 
seems  to  imply  this  as  a  part  of  God's  present 
utterance  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  ancient 
Israel. 

11.  So  (that)^  I  sware  in  my  wrath.  They 
shall  not  enter  into  my  rest.  The  rest  here 
spoken  of  is  originally  the  earthly  Canaan.  It 
was  God's  rest  ('my  rest ' )  in  the  sense  of  being 
bestowed  on  the  people  immediately  by  him. 
See  Deut.  12;  9,  10:  "For  ye  are  not  as  yet 
come  into  the  rest  and  the  inheritance  which 
the  Lord  your  God  giveth  you ;  and  ye  shall 
cross  the  Jordan  and  shall  dwell  in  the  land 
which  the  Lord  our  God  shall  give  you  to  in- 
herit; and  he  shall  give  you  rest  from  all  your 
enemies  round  about,  and  ye  shall  dwell  in 
security."  (Septuagint.)  For  the  solemn  as- 
severation of  God  here  referred  to,  see  Num. 
14  :  23,  seq. ;  Deut  1 :  34,  35 :  "  And  the  Lord 
heard  the  voice  of  your  words,  and  was  wroth, 
and  sware,  saying.  Surely  there  shall  not  one 
of  these  men  of  this  evil  generation  see  that 
good  land,"  etc. 


13.  Take  heed  (BAtVere,  look  to  it,  beware). 
The  verb,  standing  with  no  introductory  par- 
ticle, is  pecaliarly  energetic.  It  may  also  inr 
troduce  the  answering  clause  to  'wherefore, 
as'  (ver. 7),  but  I  dccm  it  doubtful.  Brethren, 
lest  {haply)  there  (shall)  be  in  any  one  of 
you.  Emphasis  on  'you,'  as  contrasted  with 
the  ancient  unbelievers.  The  exhortation 
which  the  author  has  already  given  indirectly, 
in  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  now  gives 
directly  in  his  own.  An  evil  [noimipd,  depraved, 
malignant,  intentionally  wicked ;  stronger  than 
KaKTi,  bad)  heart  of  unbelief.  An  unbeliev- 
ing heart,  a  heart  whose  quality  and  manifes- 
tation is  unbelief;  not  unfaithfulness,  nor  disc-, 
bedience,  but  that  refusal  to  trust  in  God  which 
is  the  parent  of  both.  This  unbelief  was  the, 
great  sin  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  and 
caused  their  apostasy  from  God.  The  lan- 
guage is  probably  suggested  by  the  "always 
straying  in  heart'^  of  ver.  10.  In  departing 
from  (or,  in  falling  away,  aTroo-r^i'oi,  falling, 
off,  apostatizing,  not  merely  isolated  acts  of 
disobedience)  the  living  God.  God  is  here 
not  the  equivalent  of  Christ;  but  the  Old  Tes- 
tament forms  of  conception  are  transferred  to. 
the  New.  God,  Deity  as  such,  is  also  in  the, 
New  Testament  regarded  as  the  ultimate  ob- 
ject of  worship  and, source  of  authority.  Hc^ 
sent  his  Son,  he  calls,  regenerates  by  the  Spirit,, 
justifies,  glorifies.  'The  living  God,'  first  per- 
haps as  contrasted  with  idols,  lifeless  images, 
but  subsequently  evincing  that  he  lives  by 
working  within  us,  by  executing  his  threats, 
and  fulfilling  his  promises. 

13.  But  exhort  one  another  daily  (day 
by  day).  The  language  implies  the  danger  in 
which  the  readers  stood  of  apostasy ;  hence, 
their  need  of  resorting  to  that  i)owerful  means 
of  protection,  mutual  and  constantly  repeated. 
exhortation.  The  power  of  the  social  element, 
and  the  power  o{  repeated  enforcement  of  duty 
are  both  clearly  implied.  While— that  is,  so 
long  as  ("XP'*  "^i  «P  t^  where,  up  to  the  extreme 


•■0«,  literally  as,  but  here  probably,  as  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  "^'^X  equivalent  to  Sxrrt,  so  that. 


SSi 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  III. 


day;  lest  any  of  you  be  hardened  through  the  deceit- 
fulness  of  sin. 

14  For  we  are  made  partakers  of  Christ,  if  we  bold 
the  beginning  of  our  conlideiice  steadfast  unto  the  end ; 
•15  While  it  is  said,  To  day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice, 
barden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation. 


one  of  you  be  hardened  by  the  deceitfulness  of  sin  : 

14  for  we  are  become  partakers  i  of  Christ,  if  we  hold 
fast  the  beginning  of  our  confidence  firm  unto  the 

15  end:  while  it  is  said, 

To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice. 

Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation. 


point  of  time  in  which)  it  is  called  to- 
day. Either,  '  while  the  to-day  of  the  Psalm 
is  called,  is  named,'  while  that  period  lasts 
which  in  the  Psalm  is  called  'to-day';  or, 
while  the  word  '  to-day '  is  called — that  is,  ut- 
tered, resounds  in  our  ears.  The  meaning 
does  not  vary  materially.  The  '  to-day '  of  the 
P.salmist  is  clearly  here  applied,  not  to  our 
individual  life,  but  to  the  present  expectant 
time  before  the  return  of  the  Messiah,  when 
the  final  doom  of  all  will  be  sealed.  This  '  to- 
day' had  urgent  force  to  the  Jews  just  before 
the  impending  judgments.  Christ's  typical 
Second  Coming  broke  over  their  nation  as  a  day 
of  doom,  crushing  and  annihilating  their  The- 
ocracy; but  it  survives  that  crisis  and  retains 
undiminished  force  till  the  real  Second  Coming 
ffliall  settle  all  destinies  forever.  Lest  any 
»f  you  be  hardened  through  the  deceit- 
illness  of  sin — in  order  that  from  you  there 
be  none.  'You'  is  emphatic,  but  not  as  con- 
trasted with  the  'fathers'  (which  would  re- 
quire 'also'  (xai),  but  with  reference  to  their 
highly  favored  condition,  encompassed  by  the 
fight  and  promises  of  the  gospel.  (Delitzsch, 
Moll.)  Sin  is  properly,  in  its  essence,  unbelief 
And  apostasy.  It  is  falling  away  in  heart  from 
G-od.  So  the  author  in  this  Epistle  generally 
conceives  it,  not  in  its  outward  form  of  '  trans- 
ifression  of  the  law,'  but  its  inward  essence  of 
distrust  and  abandonment  of  God.  So  sin  in 
Eden  deceived  our  first  parents  and  seduced 
them  from  God.  That  deceit  which  produced 
the  first  great  apostasy  is  probably  here  referred 
tb;  But  sin  always  works  essentially  as  it 
worked  first.  It  deceives  and  seduces.  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  Apostle  is  dealing 
XVith  the  theoretical  question  of  justification 
from  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  and  sin  is  a 
ttansgression  of  the  law.  Here  the  writer  is 
dealing  practically  with  those  who  are  in  dan- 
ger of  apostatizing  from  God,  and  sin  is  apos- 
tasy in  heart  from  God. 
'   14,  For  we  are  made  (or,  have  become). 


The  perfect  present  tense  elegantly  and  forci- 
bly assumes  the  result  as  an  accomplished  and 
existing  fact.  Partakers  of  Christ.  The 
stress  of  the  idea  lies,  as  shown  by  its  position  in 
the  best  MSS.,  on  'partakers'  ;  implying  that 
whatever  our  professions  and  hopes,  we  have 
become  'partakers  of  Christ,'  actual  sharers  of 
his  salvation  and  kingdom,  ii— provided  that, 
and  only  provided  that  (Uvntp,  precisely  if,  an 
emphatic  form  of  the  conditional  particle;  see 
6:  3) — we  hold  fast  {maintain)  the  begin- 
ning of  our  confidence ;  that  is,  our  origi- 
nal confidence,  the  joyful  confidence  with  which 
we  commenced  our  Christian  profession.  Such 
joyful  confidence  these  Christians  had  origi- 
nally shown.  (6: to;  10:34, 35.)  ' The  beginning 
of  our  confidence,'  then,  here  denotes  not  im- 
perfection (as  Ebrard),  much  less  the  'princi- 
ple, or  foundation  of  confidence,'  namely, 
faith,  nor  the  'first  foundation  of  religion. '' 
Steadfast  {firm)  unto  the  end.  This  phrase, 
probably  spurious  at  ver.  6,  is  genuine  here. 
It  makes  a  rhetorical  antithesis  to  'beginning' 
[apxnv).  The  'confidence'  with  which  we  be- 
gan must  be  carried  through  to  the  end.  The 
whole  verse  is  elegantly  and  emphatically 
terse ;  we  have  become  2>"'''ticipants  of  Christ, 
provided  that  the  beginning  of  our  confidence 
we  maintain  steadfast  until  the  end. 

15,  16.  While  it  is  said,  etc.,  or,  hi  its 
being  said,  To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice, 
harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provoca- 
tion. For  who,  whe7i  they  heard,  did  pro- 
voke ?  The  connection  of  ver.  15  has  occa- 
sioned much  perplexity,  and  I  think  has  not 
been  satisfactorily  settled.  Some,  putting  ver. 
14  in  parenthesis,  have  attached  it  to  ver.  13, 
connecting,  however,  the  words  '  In  its  be- 
ing said'  only  with  the  clause,  'To-day  if  ye 
shall  hear  his  voice,'  and  making  the  rest  a 
continuance  of  the  writer's  exhortation.  The 
utter  harshness  of  this  construction  renders 
refutation  unnecessary.  It  could  be  accepted 
but  as  a  desperate  resort,  Avhen  all  others  had 


'  It  seems  impossible  to  doubt  that  vn-dtrToo-w  has  in  Hellenistic  Greek  the  not  unnatural  meaning  of  ' confi- 
dence,' and  such  is  its  most  natural  rendering  here. 


Ch.  III.] 


HEBREWS. 


53 


failed.  Others  construct  the  verse  with  that 
immediately  preceding,  as  epexegetical  either 
of  '  unto  the  end,'  or  of  the  conditional  clause, 
'provided  that  we  hold,'  etc.  This,  too,  needs 
but  to  be  examined  to  be  rejected.  The  best  re- 
cent interpretations  (as  Liinemann,  De  Wette, 
Delitzsch,  Moll,  Kurtz)  construct  it,  by  an 
elliptical  usage,  not  unfamiliar  to  the  Greek 
language,  with  the  clause  immediately  follow- 
ing. They  render  nearly  thus :  '  In  its  being 
said,  To-day  if  ye  hear  his  voice,  harden  not 
your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  Why,  who, 
when  they  heard,  provoked  him  ?  In  its  being 
said  thus — who  now,  who  I  pray,  on  hearing, 
provoked  him?'  Of  the  constructions  thus 
far  given,  this  alone  can  claim  a  favorable  con- 
sideration. Its  abrupt  use  of  the  for  (y<ip)  is  a 
violence  which,  in  many  cases,  the  Greek  lan- 
guage rather  loves  than  shrinks  from,  and  it 
succeeds  in  reducing  to  tolerable  order  a  sen- 
tence which  in  either  of  the  preceding  con- 
structions admits  neither  defense  nor  explana- 
tion. But  even  so  constructed,  it  is  harsh  and 
unnatural.  It  is  hard  to  see  why  the  author 
should  have  re-introduced  the  long  quotation 
for  the  purpose  of  commenting  on  the  word 
'provocation,'  and  if  he  did,  why  he  should 
introduce  the  commenting  clause  in  so  abrupt 
and  harsh  a  way,  which  transcends  the  ordi- 
nary limits  of  Greek  prose  and  stretches  the 
license  of  the  language  beyond  anything  else- 
where exhibited  in  this  Epistle.  The  ques- 
tion, "For  who,  on  hearing,  provoked  him?" 
looks  very  much  like  an  after  thought,  as  if  it 
sprang  up  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  suggested 
by  the  previous  word  '  provocation ' ;  and  it  is 
not  difficult  to  suppose  that  such  is  really  its 
origin,  and  that  it  led  him  away  for  the  mo- 
ment from  the  thought  with  which  he  had 
commenced.  Such  is,  on  the  whole,  my  own 
decided  conviction.  I  follow  the  Greek  inter- 
preters, Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  (Ecumen- 
ius,  in  regarding  it  as  an  unfinished  construc- 
tion, in  which  the  thought,  temporarily  sus- 
pended, is  subsequently  resumed,  though  in  a 
somewhat  different  form.  Taking  it  as  a  bro- 
ken construction,  there  are  two  ways  in  which 
we  may  fill  out  the  ellipsis.  We  may  suppose 
that  the  writer,  having  finished  one  form  of 
his  exhortation,  was  going  to  make  &  deduction 
from  the  words,  'To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his 
voice,'  etc. ;  namely,  that  in  its  being  so  said, 
we  discover  that  the  promise  of  the  rest  of  God 


was  not  exhausted  upon  the  ancient  Israelites, 
but  that  the  later  promise,  and  in  a  still  more 
spiritual  form,  remains  open  to  us— a  thought 
which  lies,  of  course,  in  the  words,  and  which 
he  proceeds  in  the  next  chapter  to  develop; 
employing  there,  our  passage  as  his  decisive 
and  crowning  proof:  or  we  may  take  Chrys- 
ostom's  explanation  that  it  is  a  hi/perbaton,  or 
reversal  of  the  natural  order;  that  the  imme- 
diate form  of  the  conception  was  hortatory, 
and  that  the  thought  is  virtually  renewed  in 
the  'Let  us  fear,  therefore,'  of  chapter  4:  l! 
In  this  case  the  thought  is  a  continuation  of 
the  preceding  exhortation,  though  the  author 
no  doubt  intended  to  introduce  the  additional 
topic  of  the  promised  rest  remaining  open  tA 
us;  and  the  conception  in  his  mind  might  be'i 
'  In  its  being  oaid,  To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  hiA 
voice,  harden  not  your  hearts  as  in  the  provo^ 
cation,  let  us  fear,  lest,  there  remaining  il 
promise  of  entering  into  his  rest,'  etc.  This 
would  be  a  most  natural  inference  from  the 
quotation,  and  a  natural  continuation  of  th« 
preceding  passage.  And  with  this  thought  ilfl 
his  mind,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
to  pause  abruptly  at  the  word  provocation,  and 
enforce  the  'Let  us  fear'  which  was  in  his 
mind  by  calling  to  mind  who  they  were  whrt 
failed  of  the  ancient  rest,  and  why  they  failed 
of  it.  This,  in  fact,  makes  the  interposed 
verses  16-19  most  strikingly  and  cogently  api- 
propriate,  while  at  the  same  time  the  lon|f 
break  in  the  sentence  naturally  leads  the 
writer  to  return  to  the  suspended  thought  with 
therefore  (ovv),  and  thus  leave  our  verse  strictly 
unfinished.  Let  the  reader  look  carefully  at 
the  entire  passage.  Suppose  the  author  wei% 
about  to  say,  '  In  its  being  said.  To  day,  if  yb 
shall  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts  «J8 
in  the  provocation,  let  us  recognize  the  prom- 
ise which  is  left  to  us  also  of  entering  into  hiii 
rest,  and  the  danger  of  our  failing  of  it,'  hoW 
natural  that  when  he  reached  the  word  which 
reminded  him  of  the  provocation  given  by  an- 
cient Israel,  and  of  the  unbelief  and  rebellioh 
by  which  they  forfeited  the  promised  rest,  hfe 
shouid  pause  to  dwell  upon  it  in  enforcement 
of  his  exhortation  (especially  as  it  was  the 
natural  train  of  thought  which  would  come  ih 
after  the  parallel  drawn  between  Moses  and 
Christ,  and  which  had  not  before  been  ex- 
plicity  referred  to),  and  then  resume  precisely 
as  he  does  at  chapter  4:1:  "Let  us  fear,  there- 


54 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  III. 


16  For  some,  when  they  had  heard,  did  provoke: 
liovvbeit  not  all  that  came  out  of  Egypt  by  Moses. 

17  Bui  with  whom  was  he  grieved  forty  years?  was  il 
pot  with  them  that  had  sinned,  whose  carcasses  fell  in 
the  wilderness? 

•    16  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not  enter 
iuto  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  believed  not? 


16  For  wtio,  when  they  heard,  did  provoke?  nay,  did 

17  not  all  they  who  came  outof  Egypt  by  Moses?  And 
with  whom  was  he  displeased  forty  years?  was  it  not 
with  them  that  sinned,  whose  '  carcases  fell  in  the 

18  wilderness?  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they 
should  not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  were 


fore,  lest,  there  still  remaining  a  promise,"  etc. 
That  Clirysostom  is  in  the  main  right,  tlierefore, 
in  his  explanation,  I  cannot  doubt;  although  I 
deem  it  questionable  whether  the  form  of  ex- 
pression, '  Let  us  fear,  therefore,'  was  not  sug- 
gested by  the  terrible  examples  just  previously 
given,  and  whether  the  thought  to  be  supplied 
was  not  of  a  more  general  character.  'In  its 
being  said,'  etc.,  let  us  recognize  the  fact  of  a 
promise  still  remaining  to  us,  and  the  danger 
of  our  forfeiting  it,  as  did  the  ancient  Israel- 
ites. Nor  is  the  break  in  the  construction  un- 
usually harsh  or  violent.  It  seems  to  me 
extremely  natural,  and  the  fact  that  Chrysos- 
tom  and  his  fellow  Grecians  assume  it  without 
hesitation  or  difficulty,  though  not  decisive,  is 
strongly  in  its  favor. 

16.  For  some  (or,  For  who),  when  they 
had  heard,  did  provoke  (him).  The  '  heard ' 
nnd  'did  provoke'  are  both  suggested  by 
the  words  of  the  quotation.  The  question 
is  put  to  call  to  the  minds  of  the  readers  the 
number  and  character  of  those  who  anciently 
forfeited  the  restof  Canaan  and  perished  under 
the  wrath  of  God.'  Howbeit  not  all,  etc. 
(rather,  Nay,  did  not  all  those  who  came  out 
of  Egypt  through  Moses  ?)  Each  part  of  this 
sentence  enhances  the  emphasis  of  the  whole. 
Was  it  not  those  who  'came  out  from  Egypt,' 
whom  God  had  zo  highly  favored  by  inter- 
posing in  their  behalf,  and  rescuing  them  from 
bondage?  Was  it  not  those  who  came  out 
^thj'ough  Moses,'  the  great  leader,  lawgiver, 
prophet,  and  earthly  head  of  the  Jewish  the- 
ocracy, whom  this  distinguished  servant  of 
God  had  led  forth  ?  And  was  it  not  the  whole 
of  them?  Did  not  the  entire  body  commit  the 
sin  and  reap  the  punishment  ?  From  the  fate 
of  a  whole  community,  who  had  thus  heard 
the  delivering  and  promising  voice  of  God, 
and  been  redeemed  by  his  most  eminent  ser- 
vant, his  readers  might  well  take  warning. 
The  two  or  three  individual  exceptions  (as 


Caleb  and  Joshua)  to  the  general  crime  and 
fate  of  the  people,  do  not  afl'ect  the  substantial 
accuracy  of  the  statement. 

17.  But  with  whom  (or.  And  with  whom) 
was  he  grieved  (angry)  forty  years?  The 
author  here  returns  to  the  Septuagint  construc- 
tion of  the  'forty  years,'  connecting  them 
with  the  verb  'to  be  angry.'  This  shows  that 
the  change  made  above,  though  not  strictly 
accidental,  nor,  probably,  without  a  definite 
purpose,  was  yet  not  at  all  vital  to  his  object 
in  making  the  quotation.  Having  before  drawn 
attention  to  the  character  of  the  persons  who 
formerly  incurred  the  divine  displeasure  and 
forfeited  the  promise,  he  now,  with  equal  per- 
tinence, points  to  the  means  by  which  they  did 
it.  Was  it  not  with  them  that  had  sinned  ? 
Not,  'with  them  that  are  from  time  to  time 
sinning,'  or  violating  God's  law.  I'heir  sin  is 
liere  conceived  as  one  collective  sin  (aorist  par- 
ticiple, a)itopT^<ro<7ii') ;  namely,  falling  away  from 
God,  precisely  that  which  his  readers  are  now 
in  imminent  danger  of  committing.  Whose 
carcasses  fell  in  the  wilderness.  This 
clause  many  editors  include  in  the  previous 
interrogations ;  but  they  certainly  are  in  error. 
It  is  no  proper  reply  to  the  question,  With 
whom  was  he  angry?  He  was  angry  with 
them  that  sinned.  And  this  is  a  natural  and 
forcible  addition  to  remind  them  of  the  con- 
sequences of  that  sin  and  that  wrath.  Tlie 
'whose'  may  be  rendered  by  'and  their': 
'and  their  carcasses- fell  in  the  wilderness'; 
according  to  the  threat  in  Num.  14  :  32. 
'  Fell,'  by  a  usage  equally  common — of  the 
Greek  word  (jmrTio),  and  the  English,  fall — 
were  overthrown,  prostrated,  destroyed. 

18.  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they 
should  not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to 
them  that  beliered  not?  'Believed  not' — 
more  exactly,  disobeyed ;  but  as  we  thus  lose 
the  correspondence  of  words  —  tlie  Greek 
'disobedience'   and   'unbelief   (iwiitfeiar  and 


1  We  need  write  no  words  in  defending  the  rive:  and  tiViv,  who  and  to  whom  of  the  critical  editions,  instead  of 
rwe<i  and  Ti<riV,  some&nA  to  some,of  theTextus  Receptus. 
*  KwAa,  members,  limbs,  carcasses. 


Ch.  IV.] 


HEBREWS. 


55 


19  So  we  see  that  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  |  19  disobedient?    And  we  see  that  they  were  not  able 
unbelief.  |       to  enter  in  because  of  unbelief, 


CHAPTER  IV. 


LET  us  therefore  fear,  lest,  a  promise  being  left  us  of  I 
enteriug  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should  seeui  to 
come  short  of  it. 


1  Let  us  fear  therefore,  lest  haply,  a  promise  being 
left  of  entering  into  his  rest,  any  one  of  yi,u  sliould 

2  seeiu  to  have  come  short  of  it.     For  indeed  we  have 


airtdTcoi')  having  a  near  etymological  and  pho- 
netic relation — we,  perhaps,  lose  more  in  the 
antithesis  of  ver.  18  and  19,  by  retaining  'dis- 
obeying,' than  we  gain  in  exactness  of  meaning. 
In  the  author's  conception,  as  also  in  fact,  'dis- 
obedience' is  but  just  tlie  natural  expression 
of  unbelief.  Had  the  sentence  corresponded 
in  form  to  the  preceding  as  it  does  in  thought, 
it  would  have  run  thus:  And  to  whom  sware 
he  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest? 
Was  it  not  to  them  that  (disobeyed)  believed 
not?  This  question  advances  on  the  preceding 
both  in  definiteness  and  pungency.  The  former 
declared  God's  wrath  for  sin  in  its  most  gen- 
eral stiitement;  this  declares  the  effect  of  that 
wrath  in  exclusion  from  his  rest,  and  the  sin 
in  its  principle,  a  'heart  of  unbelief.'  The 
author  is  bringing  round  the  thought  in  his 
characteristic  manner  to  the  topic  in  his  mind 
(as,  I  believe)  at  ver.  15,  and  to  be  formally 
taken  up  in  chapter  4. 

19.  So  we  see  (better,  And  we  behold)  that 
they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbe- 
lief. There  is  here  no  Q.  E.  D.  from  a  pre- 
ceding argument,  as  held  by  Ebrard,  with 
many  interpreters,  and  implied  by  the  er- 
roneous 'so'  of  the  Common  Version.  It 
simply  (Delitzsch)  has  reference  to  the  imme- 
diately preceding  quotation  and  its  answer, 
and  is  an  emphatic  statement,  by  a  reference 
to  what  we  behold,  what  is  presented  to  our 
view  on  the  page  of  history,  of  the  conse- 
quences of  that  unbelief,  in  the  oath  of  ex- 
clusion to  which  it  led.  The  'and  we  be- 
hold' is  not  logical,  as  concluding  a  train  of 
reasoning,  but  simply  refers  us  to  the  Old 
Testament  record  as  shotoing  that  tlie  awful 
oath  of  exclusion  was  carried  into  effect.  It 
thus  stands  related  to  ver.  18  just  as  the  last 
clause  of  ver.  17  stands  related  to  the  preceding 
clause.  They  stand  in  substantial  parallelism 
thus: 

And  with  whom  was  he  angry  during  forty  years? 

Was  it  not  with  them  that  sinned? 

And  their  carcasses  fell  in  the  wilderness ! 


And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not  enter  into 

his  rest  ? 
Was  it  not  to  them  that  believed  not? 
And  we  see  that  they  were  unable  to  enter  in  because 

of  unbelief! 

The  idea  that  this  last  verse  is,  in  some  inde- 
finable way,  the  winding  up  of  a  chain  of 
reasoning,  has  confused  many  interpreters. 
As  above  analyzed  (Delitzsch  and  Moll),  it 
becomes  perfectly  clear.  This  passage,  which 
has  thus  tersely  set  forth  the  prerogatives,  the 
sin,  and  the  fate  of  the  ancient  people  of  God, 
leads  also,  naturally,  to  the  warning,  "  Let  us, 
therefore,  fear,"  with  which  the  next  chapter 
opens,  and  the  discussion  of  the  topic  of  the 
promised  rest,  forfeited  by  ancient  Israel, 
being  still  open  to  the  people  of  God,  as 
implied  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist. 


Ch.  4.  (3)  The  rest  of  God  forfeited  by 
ancient  Israel  still  open  under  its  higher 
form,  as  God's  Sabbatic  rest,  to  the  spiritual 
Israel.     (1-10.) 

1.  With  the  fact  of  the  awful  stumbling 
and  fall  of  ancient  Israel  still  fresh  in  his 
mind,  the  author  commences  the  present 
chapter  with  an  exhortation  which,  while  it 
introduces  a  new  topic,  links  itself  closely 
with  the  preceding.  The  new  thought  is : 
"There  is  still  remaining  (while  there  still 
remaineth)  a  promise  of  entering  into  his 
rest"  ;  the  exhortation  is:  Let  us  therefore 
fear  (in  view  of  this  terrible  fall  of  Israel 
under  Moses)  lest  any  of  you  should  seem 
to  come  short  of  it  (or,  may  seem  to  have 
come  short  of  it).  We  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  fact  of  the  remaining  of  this  promise 
of  rest  to  us  is  here  momentarily  assumed.  It 
does  not  follow  from  anything  which  has  been 
previously  said,  except  by  an  implication, 
which  the  author  subsequently  develops.  It 
is  in  no  way  a  direct  inference  from  the  unbe- 
lief and  overthrow  of  Israel  in  the  dissert. 
To  reason  from  the  failure  of  ancient  Israel 


56 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


•to  obtain  the  promised  rest  to  the  continuance 
or  transfer  of  that  promise  to  a  later  age,  is, 
as  Delitzsch  justly  observes,  a  piece  of  incon- 
sequence which  we  are  not  to  charge  upon  our 
author.  He  does  not  so  reason  in  the  slightest 
degree.  He  argues  it  simply  and  exclusively 
from  the  Psalm,  which  he  has  already  cited, 
and  in  which  citation  he  finds  this  continued 
or  repeated  promise  clearly  implied.  And  an 
analysis  of  the  passage  shows  how  just  is  his 
conclusion,  and  how  singularly  pertinent, 
therefore,  was  the  Psalm  to  the  purpose  for 
which  he  quoted  it.  *  To-day  if  ye  shall  hear 
his  voice'  points  to  a  probability,  or,  rather,  a 
certainty,  that  the  Israelites  of  this  later  period 
would  hear  (or,  did  hear)  the  voice  of  God 
coming  to  them  with  the  renewal  of  the  an- 
cient promise  of  rest,  the  like  joyful  message 
with  that  which  came  to  their  fathers.  The 
warning  to  them  against  hardening  their 
hearts  after  the  example  of  their  fathers,  and 
the  reminding  them  of  the  terrible  penalty 
which  their  father's  unbelief  incurred  — 
namely,  a  forfeiture  of  the  rest  of  God — have 
no  pertinence,  except  on  the  assumption  that 
a  like  joyful  message  and  promise  of  rest  has 
come,  or  is  to  come,  to  them,  and  which  they 
are  in  danger  of  forfeiting  by  a  like  unbelief. 
On  this  passage,  and,  for  the  present  discus- 
sion, on  nothing  else,  the  author  founds  his 
assertion  that  a  promise  of  rest  still  awaits  the 
people  of  God.  The  'to-day'  of  the  Psalmist 
he  conceives,  of  course,  as  extending  indefi- 
nitely down  to  the  next  great  catastrophe  in 
Jewish  history,  if  not  as  being,  what  it  very 
possibly  was,  a  direct  prophecy  of  the  proffer 
of  spiritual  rest  to  be  made  to  the  people  by 
the  Messiah.  In  this  interpretation  he  is  fully 
warranted.  The  passage  cannot  mean  any- 
thing less,  nor  anything  else.  It  requires  no 
rabbinical  subtilizing,  and  noingenious  or  ver- 
bal sophistry.  There  stands  out,  as  clearly 
involved  in  it  as  if  it  were  stated  in  the  fullest 
and  most  express  terms,  that  the  once  forfeited 
promise  or  entering  into  God's  rest  stands  over, 
or  is  repeated  to  a  later  age.  But  another  thing 
the  author  assumes,  and  can  but  assume:  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  people  to  whom  this 
promise  of  rest  first  came  disobeyed  and  per- 
ished, the  whole  of  them,  that  they  were  not 
the  true  people  of  God ;  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  this  promise  is  now  repeated  centuries 
after  the  Jews  entered  Canaan,  that  the  real 


rest  of  the  promise  was  a  higher  rest,  of  which 
the  rest  of  Canaan  was  but  typical.  He  is  justi- 
fied, therefore,in  looking  farther,and  inquiring 
what  is  the  true  rest  which  was  indicated  by 
that  pregnant  and  mighty  phrase,  the  rest  of 
God.  Yet  all  this  is  but  inferential  from  the 
one  central,  decisive  passage.  He  plants  him- 
self on  his  interpreta,tion  of  the  Spirit's  lan- 
guage of  the  Old  Testament.  Finding  it 
afiirmed  that  a  promise  of  entering  into  the 
rest  of  God  is  renewed  to  later  Israel,  he 
thence  simply  looks  back  and  inquires  what 
light  this  sheds  upon  tlie  nature  of  the  rest  of 
Canaan,  and  looks  around  to  see  what  must 
be  the  rest  which,  at  this  late  stage,  is  offered 
to  the  people  of  God.  He  finds  but  one  ex- 
planation. He  links  it  with  the  Sabbath  rest 
of  God  at  the  close  of  the  Creation,  and  into 
which  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  for  man 
shows  that  it  was  God's  purpose  that  man 
should  enter.  The  following  verses  now  pro- 
ceed straight  forward,  very  elliptically  and 
tersely,  but  with  undeniable  justice  and  force, 
to  develop  this  line  of  thought.  He  is  not, 
however,  in  ver.  1-7,  going  through  the  several 
steps  of  an  argumentation  io  prove  the  point 
that  there  remains  a  rest.  Planting  himself 
on  his  interpretatio7i  of  the  Scriptures,  he  is 
simply  developing  the  inferences  from  that 
statement,  and  especially  the  grand  inference 
as  to  the  spiritual  and  Sabbatic  nature  of  this 
promised  rest.  '  Let  us  therefore  fear.'  This 
certainly  is  not,  strictly  and  inform.,  the  an- 
swering and  continuing  clause  of  the  seem- 
ingly (and,  I  believe,  really)  unfinished  3  :  15, 
'In  its  being  said,'  etc.,  all  between  being 
strictly  parenthetical.  But  that  the  author 
does  really  proceed  to  develop  the  thought 
which  he  then  had  in  mind,  and  from  which 
he  abruptly  turned  aside — namely,  what  was 
really  implied,  both  of  fact  and  of  warning, 
in  that  language— I  see  no  good  reason  for 
doubting.  He  approaches  it,  however,  in  a 
different  manner,  with  the  emphatic  'Let  us 
therefore  fear'  caught  from  the  awful  exam- 
ples of  unbelief  which  he  has  just  cited.  The 
then,  therefore  (oSi-)  reasons  from  those  ex- 
amples to  our  need  of  fear;  not  from  their 
having  forfeited  a  promise  to  its  transfer  to 
us.  Lest  a  promise  being  left  us  (or,  there 
still  remaining  a  promise^  of  entering  into 
his  rest.  Emphasis  on  the  '  remaining,'  as 
shown  by  its  position,  as  well  as  the  connee- 


Ch.  IV.] 


HEBREWS. 


57 


2  For  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached,  as  well  as 
unto  them:  but  the  word  preached  did  not  protil  them, 
not  being  mixed  with  fuith  in  them  that  heard  it, 

3  For  we  which  have  believed  do  enter  into  rest,  as 


had  I  good  tidings  preached  unto  us,  even  as  also 
they:  but  the  word  of  hearing  did  not  profit  theiu, 
because  -  it  was  not  united  by  laith  with  them  that 
3  beard.  ^Vot  we  who  have  believed  do  enter  into 
tbat  rest;  even  as  he  hath  said, 


1  Or,  a  gotpel 'i  Many  ancieDt  uuihorities  read  they  were 3  Some  authorities  read  We  therefore. 


tion.'  The  burden  of  the  thought  now  to  be 
illustrated— namely,  that  the  promise  of  en- 
tering into  God's  rest  was  not  exhausted  upon 
ancient  Israel,  but  renewed,  and  remains,  in 
a  heightened  form,  to  the  Christian  Israel — is 
contained  in  this  clause.  'Any  one  of  you  may 
seem  to  have  come  short  of  it.'  'Of  you' 
{ii  ii^itv,  from  you)  is  clearly  emphatic.  We 
may  observe,  too,  the  significant  change  of 
person,  from  the  first  person  plural  of  the 
hortatory,  'Let  us  fear.'  There  the  author 
puts  himself  into  the  category  of  his  hearers 
to  win  their  favorable  hearing.  But  his  solic- 
itude is,  after  all,  not  for  himself,  but  for  them. 
Not  he,  but  they,  are  in  danger  of  apostasy; 
and  the  close  of  the  sentence  forgets,  in  its 
earnestness,  ,  the  rhetorical  modesty  of  the 
opening,  and  converges  the  wholeforce  of  the 
appeal  upon  those  for  whom  it  was  properly 
intended.  '  'May  seem'  (fio«^),  a  word  which 
■may  be  taken  as  giving  emphasis  to  the  mean- 
ing, '  lest  any  of  you  maj' — not  only  not  have 
come  short,  but  may  seem,  to  have  come  short.' 
(Delitzsch.)  This,  however,  would  almost 
require  an  accompanying  even  (kcU),  '  may 
even  seem,'  ;  and  I  prefer  to  regard  it  rather 
as  softening  the  force  of  the  expression.  As 
if  the  writer  could  not  bear  to  conceive  of 
their  having  come  actually  short,  he  connects 
with  it  an  uneinphatic  'may  seem'  (Sok^), 
may  be  accounted,  to  have  come  short — a 
use  of  the  verb  not  unfamiliar  to  classical 
Greek,  which  often  puts  the  words  "to seem," 
instead  of  "to  be,"  the  seeming,  or  being 
accounted,  for  the  being.  'To  have  come 
short,'  with  reference,  probably',  to  the  Jews 
under  Moses  having  fallen  short  of  entering 
the  promised  land.  Ebrard's  construction  of 
the  passage  (following  Wahl,  Bretschneider), 
"may  think  that  he  has  arrived  too  late," 
though  grammatically  possible,  has  no  other 


recommendation.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
emphatic  'Let  us  fear,'  wliich  should  rather 
have  run,  '  Let  not  any  of  us  fear  that  we  have 
arrived  too  late,  that  there  is  not  still  a  promise 
for  us,'  which  would  have  made  a  not  inappro- 
priate sense,  though  not  the  one  required  here. 

2.  This  verse  states  categorically  what  ver. 
1  had  stated  informally  and  indirectly.  For 
unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached,  etc.  It 
may  be  rendered,  For  we  have  had  the 
glad  m,essage,  the  promise  of  a  rest,  just  as 
did  also  they.  The  emphasis  lies  not  on  the 
'us'  (or  we),  but  on  the  verb  have  had,  as 
against  a  possible  denial  of  the  fact.  But  the 
word  preached  (the  word  of  their  hearing) 
did  not  profit  them — 'them'  with  emphasis, 
the  clause  being  added  half  incidentally,  but 
iinportant  as  recalling  the  fact  stated  abov 
and  renewing  to  the  readers  the  warning 
drawn  from  the  failure  of  ancient  Israel 
to  profit  by  the  promise,  and  finding  in  that 
failure  a  ground  for  the  promise's  renewal. 
Had  it  fulfilled  itself  in  them,  there  could 
have  been  no  room  for  its  repetition.  Not 
being  mixed  with  faith  in  them  {not  hav- 
ing m.ixed  itself  by  faith  with  them)  that 
heard  it.^  It  was  merely  a  word  of  hearing 
(referring  to  the  "to-day,  if  ye  hear"  above) ; 
it  did  not  penetrate  their  hearts;  receiving  it 
with  the  ear,  they  were  rebellious  and  for- 
feited it.  (De  Wette  explains:  "For  the 
good  of  them  them  that  heard  it";  others, 
"in  respect  to.") 

3.  For  we  which  have  believed  do  enter 
into  rest— that  is,  we  enter,  or  are  entering, 
into  rest,  as  those  who  have  believed.  '  Re- 
ceiving the  glad  tidings'  is  now  'entering into 
rest,'  on  which  lies  the  primary  emphasis,  re- 
affirming our  having  received  renewedly  the 
promise,  while  a  secondary  emphasis  lies  on 
the  beVeving,  as  contrasted  with  the  unbelief 


*  KaTaA«iir«ii',  To  leave  down,  to  leave  still  remaining, 
and,  as  it  were,  firm.  Not, 'the  promise  being  relin- 
quished, abandoned'  (as  many),  which,  besides  being 
less  in  accordance  with  the  context,  would  much 
more  naturally  take  the  active,  instead  of  the  pnssive 
participle,  and  the  article  with  iTtay^iKiav  ((caraAeii^as, 
or,  KaTaXfC\liavTt%  Tt\v  iirayyfKi.a.v). 


2 A  better  <°3;/*m/7//.i/ attested  reading,  which  makes  the 
participle  agree  with  "  them 'H<'^>'Y''««P*<'''^*''°''«)t '""•'^'S 
no  tolerable  sense;  "not  having  united  themselves  hy 
faith  with  them  (that  is,  Caleb  and  .Toshua)  that 
hoard'";  that  is,  obeyed,  taking  a<cou»t>'  here  as  equivalent 
to  uiroutouciK.    But  the  change  is  violent  and  iuiprobableii 


58 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


he  said,  As  I  have  sworn  in  my  wrath,  if  they  shall 
enter  iulo  luy  rest:  although  the  works  were  finished 
from  the  fouadatiou  of  the  world. 


1  As  I  sware  in  my  wrath, 
2 They  sball  not  enter  into  my  rest: 
although  the  works  were  finished  from  the  founda- 


1  Or,  So 2  Gr.  1/  they  shall  enter. 


which  excluded  the  ancient  recipients  of  the 
})roinise.  Many  interpreters  rest  the  main 
emphasis  on  tlie  believing,  but  I  think  that 
still  the  author's  main  scope  is  the  fact  of  the 
promise  being  renewed  to  the  later  Israel. 
The  'we  who  have  believed'  marks  also  not 
individual  faith,  or  the  actuality  of  its  posses- 
sion; but  faith,  as  the  condition  of  our  enter- 
ing into  rest,  as  against  the  faithlessness  which 
excluded  the  original  receivers  of  the  promise. 
The  present  verb  '  we  enter'  (eio-epx^M^^a)  may  be 
taken  in  its  generality,  as  the  successive  heirs  of 
the  New  Testament  promise,  or  as  denoting  the 
now  incompleted  act;  like  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness,  we  are  moving  on  toward  our  spir- 
itual Canaan.  (According)  as  he  (hath)  said. 
As  I  have  sworn  (so  that  I  sware)  in  my 
wrath,  if  they  shall  (they  shall  not)  enter 
into  my  rest.  Quoted  from  the  above  warn- 
ing to  the  later  Israel  not  to  repeat  the  disas- 
trous unbelief  of  their  fixthers;  but  quoted 
specially  for  the  verbal  correspondence  of  its 
phrase  'enter  into  my  rest'  with  the  'entering 
into  rest'  just  aflfirmed  of  Ne'w  Testament  be- 
lievers, and  to  lead  the  way  to  a  statement  of 
the  nature  of  this  rest,  called  significantly 
'my' — that  is,  God's — 'rest.'  In  the  original 
declaration  the  '  my  '  is  objective,  the  rest  which 
God  bestoivs  (Canaan) ;  here  it  is  subjective, 
the  rest  which  God  enjoys,  and  into  which  he 
admits  his  people.  This  is  shown  by  the  im- 
mediately following  explanation.  Althou§:h 
the  (his)  works  were  (had  been)  finished 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and 
thus  the  rest  established  into  which  God  could 
admit  his  creatures.  The  author's  procedure 
is  justified  by  the  Psalm  from  which  he  quotes. 
Tills  proffers  an  entrance  into  the  rest  of  God  to 
the  later  Israel  centuries  after  the  elder  Israel 
had  entered  Canaan.  What,  then,  could  be 
this  rest  of  God  again  proffered  them,  and 
which  they  are  so  solemnly  warned  against 
forfeiting?  The  problem  is  a  legitimate  one. 
He  is  not  asserting  that  the  ancient  Canaan 
was  not  the  true  rest,  and  then  looking  round 
for  another  meaning  to  the  expression.  He 
simply  infers  from  this  rest  of  God  being 
offered  to  the  Jews  centuries  after  the  Jews 
entered  Canaan,  that  Canaan  could  not  have 


been  the  true  rest,  and  inquires  what  was  so; 
what  that  typical  rest  prefigured.  He  turns 
back  to  the  rest  into  which  God  entered  at  the 
creation,  and  this,  as  is  shown  by  his  instituting 
the  Sabbath,  and  blessing  and  hallowing  the 
day,  not  for  himself,  but  for  humanity.  The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  it  might  well 
be  believed  that  when  the  work  of  redemption 
should  be  accomplished,  the  rest  of  God,  of 
which  it  was  now  a  blessed  reminder,  should 
fulfill  its  original  purpose,  and  be  a  spiritual 
Sabbath  for  a  regenerated  world.  With  the 
Fall,  along  with  the  curse  of  death,  came  the 
curse  of  toil — the  sweat  of  the  brow  and  the 
unrest  of  the  soul;  and  through  the  lips  of  the 
parents  of  Noah  humanity  uttered  its  longing 
for  deliverance,  "this  same  shall  comfort  us 
concerning  (Septuagint,  SiaTrauo-et,  shall  bring 
us  to  rest  fro-m)  our  work  and  the  toil  of  our 
hands,  because  of  the  ground  which  the  Lord 
hath  cursed."  Meantime  God  had  entered 
into  his  rest,  not  for  himself  (for  in  truth  as 
for  God  there  can  be  properly  no  work,  so  for 
him  there  can  be  no  rest;  as  he  can  never 
more  than  exercise  his  omnipotence,  so  he  can 
never  less  than  exercise  it),  but  for  man.  Ke 
had  given  to  man  the  Sabbath,  as  a  token  of 
his  beneficent  purpose,  and  impressed  the  be- 
lief that  ultimately,  when  the  curse  of  death 
(of  wliich  the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  destruc- 
tion) should  be  removed,  the  penalty  of  toil 
and  spiritual  unrest  would  be  removed  also. 
Of  that  bondage  of  the  race,  the  bondage  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  was  a  tj'pe ;  of  its  deliverance, 
that  deliverance;  of  Jesus,  its  Deliverer,  Moses 
and  Joshua,  the  one  inaugurating,  the  other 
completing,  the  deliverances,  were  types;  of 
that  rest  Canaan  itself,  with  its  milk  and 
honey  (both  obtained  largely  without  labor) 
was  a  type.  Yet  but  a  type,  earthly,  physical, 
temporary,  for  a  single  people.  What  is 
needed  is  a  rest  for  the  spirit,  for  mankind, 
forever;  the  rest  of  God,  the  Sabbatism  of  the 
race.  It  was  no  violence  to  find  this  Sabbatic 
rest  under  the  type  of  Canaan;  to  transform 
the  partial,  earthly,  transient,  troubled  rest  of 
Canaan  into  the  universal,  spiritual,  everlast- 
ing, perfect  rest  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom, 
into  which  the  great  Antitype  of  both  Moses 


Ch,  IV] 


HEBREWS. 


59 


4  For  he  spake  in  a  certain  place  of  the  seventh  day 
ou  this  wise,  And  God  did  rest  the  seventh  day  from 
all  his  works. 

5  And  iu  this  place  again,  If  they  shall  enter  into  my 
rest. 


4  tion  of  the  world.     For  he  hath  said  somewhere  of 
the  seventh  dity  on  this  wise,  And  (jod  rested  on  the 

5  seventh  day  from  all  his  works;   and  in  this  place 
again, 

1  Tbey  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest. 


1  Or.  ^  they  thall  enter. 


and  Joshua  shall  ultimately  lead  his  people. 
And  in  this  view  most  signiticant  is  the  change 
of  the  Sabbath  from  the  day  of  the  finished 
work  of  creation  to  the  day  of  the  finished 
work  of  redemption.  It  implies  that  the  true 
Sabbatism  of  the  race  would  be  realized  in 
Jesus.  The  author  is  justified,  therefore,— tak- 
ing for  granted  that  the  rest  described  is  not 
the  rest  of  Canaan,— in  referring  it  back  in  his 
pregnantly  elliptical  language  to  the  Sabbatic 
rest  of  God.  I  say  elliptical,  because  it  is 
equivalent  to  his  works  being  finished  at,  and 
then  his  rest  continuing //-om,  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  The  precise  dependence  of  the 
participle  in  the  original  (yevrieivToiv),  translated 
'were  finished,'  is  doubtful;  whether  (with 
Kuinoel)  on  "hath  said"  (elprj^ef) :  thus,  "he 
hath  said,"  etc.,  "although  his  works  had 
been  finished  "  ;  and  thus  he  could  speak  of  a 
rest;  or  on  "they  shall  not  enter  into"  (eio-eAeu- 
o-ovTai),  implying  that  there  was  a  rest  from 
which  he  could  speak  of  excluding  them.  But 
it  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  context,  I 
think,  to  regard  it  as  epexegetical  of  the  im- 
mediately preceding  phrase,  and  added  to 
intimate  what  kind  of  a  rest  it  implies;*  that 
it  points  back  really  to  the  Sabbath  rest  of 
God.  The  author  here  commences  to  define 
in  the  light  of  the  subsequent  repetition  of  the 
promise,  the  true  import  of  that  promise, 
which  to  ancient  Israel  was  veiled  under  its 
more  carnal  and  earthly  guise,  but  which,  with 
advancing  time,  reveals  its  spiritual  character. 
That  which  remains,  he  decides,  must  be  the 
promise  of  entering  into  the  Sabbath  rest  of 
God.     To  make  this  more  clear  he  adds : 

4,  5.  For  (in  confirmation  of  my  statement 
that  God's  rest  was  established  in  the  comple- 
tion of  his  works  at  the  foundation  of  the 
world)  he  spake  in  a  certain  place,  etc., 
or,  hath  said  somewhere.  'Somewhere'  does 
not  imply  ignorance  of  the  locality  of  the  pas- 
sage, but  is  simply  rhetorical.  Of  {concern- 
ing) the  seventh  day  (the  Sabbath,  the  day 
of  Sabbatic  rest)  on  this  wise.    And  God 


did  rest  the  seventh  day  from  all  his 
works.  While  the  passage  is  quoted  for  its 
general  sentiment,  its  special  emphasis  is  on 
rested  («caTeirauo-£v),  bringing  it  into  verbal,  as 
well  as  real  connection,  with  his  doctrine  of 
the  Sabbatic  rest.  And  in  this  place  again. 
If  they  shall  enter  (they  shall  not  enter) 
into  my  rest.  The  previous  verse  has  shown 
when  and  how  God  established  his  rest;  the 
present  renewed  quotation  reminds  us  that  the 
rest  exists,  and  by  declaring  the  exclusion  of 
some,  clearly  implies  that  it  was  originally  de- 
signed to  be  entered  by  his  creatures;  the 
negative  declaration,  'they  shall  not  enter,' 
having  no  force  unless  on  the  assumption  of  its 
being  under  the  proper  conditions  accessible  to 
mortals. 

6.  The  author  now  proceeds  to  his  conclu- 
sions. Let  us  review  the  elements  with  which 
he  has  to  deal  :  (1)  From  history  he  knows 
that  ancient  Israel  had  a  promise  of  entering 
into  the  land  of  Canaan— the  rest  of  God,  as 
bestowed  by  God.  (2)  By  disobedience  they 
forfeited  the  promise,  and  came  short  of  it 
— God,  in  his  wrath,  excluding  them  from  it. 
(3)  The  quoted  Psalm  shows  that  the  promise 
is  renewed  at  a  later  date,  aV>out  four  hundred 
years  after,  in  the  time  of  David — "To-day, 
if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice  "—clearly  implying 
that  they  will,  or  have  heard  it — the  voice  of 
the  renewed  proffer  of  God's  rest.  (4)  But 
this  renewed  proflTer  goes  over  the  head  of 
the  fact  that  though  Israel  under  Moses  did 
not  enter  the  promised  land,  their  descend- 
ants rfirf;  the  promise  was,  to  them,  literally 
fulfilled.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  this,  the 
voice  of  the  promise  sounded  on  all  the  same, 
showing  that  as  the  people  under  Moses  had 
shown  themselves  not  to  be  God's  true  people, 
so  the  rest  of  Canaan  had  been  shown  not  to  be 
the  true  rest.  The  congregation  in  the  wil- 
derness, with  its  elaborate  organization,  had 
proved  itself  to  be  but  a  typical  church — the 
rest  of  Canaan  had  been  proved  to  be  but  a 
typical  rest.     (5)  By  a  deduction  which  the 


'  The  somewhat  vague  particle  Kairoi,  with  which 
the  passage  opens,  is  commonly  nearly  equivalent 
to  although;   and   to  this   meaning  here   there  is  no 


objection.  I  think,  however,  it  may  mean,  "and  you 
see,"  "  and  in  sooth,"  not  being  so  much  adversative  as 
continuative. 


60 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


6  Seeing  therefore  it  remaineth  that  some  must  enter 
therein,  and  they  to  whom  it  was  first  preached  entered 
nut  in  because  of  unbelief: 


6  Seeing  therefore  it  remaineth  that  some  should  enter 
thereinto,  and  they  to  wliom  i  the  good  tidings  were 
belore  preached  failed  to  enter  in  because  of  diso- 


1  Or,  the  gospel  woe* 


wlu)le  Sabbath  history  justifies  (and  which  I 
believe  to  be  the  Spirit  of  God's  comment  on 
his  own  word),  the  promised  rest  of  God  thus 
disengages  itself  from'  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  links  itself  with  the  Sabbath  rest  into 
which  God  entered,  and  which  lie  instituted 
for  his  creatures,  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  Seeing  (or,  since)  therefore  it  re- 
maineth. The  Greek  word  here  is  not  equiv- 
alent in  sense  to  the  same  word  in  ver.  1, 
translated  'remaineth,'  is  left  behind,  not 
taken  away.  Here  it  means,  is  left  open, 
stands  in  reserve,  as  a  thing  attainable.  That 
some  must  (, rather,  should,  or,  may)  enter 
therein.  All  that  is  needful  to  establish  is 
that  the  rest  exists  and  is  accessible ;  there  is 
no  need  to  prove  that  it  must  be  entered.  And 
they  to  Avhom,  etc. — or.  They  who  form.erly 
received  the  glad  m,essage,  did  not  enter  in 
because  of  disobedience.  These  are  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  proffer  and  promise 
could  be  renewed.  But  we  may  inquire.  How 
was  the  overthrow  of  Israel  in  the  desert  a 
condition  of  its  renewal  ?  If  the  entrance  of 
the  next  generation  into  the  promised  land 
did  not  stand  in  the  way  of  its  renewal,  how 
could  the  disobedience  and  fall  of  the  fathers 
be  in  an3^  way  a  condition  of  that  renewal? 
To  this  I  answer,  first,  that  we  are  not,  unduly, 
to  press  the  condition.  The  author  has  not  in 
mind  any  intrinsic  and  absolute  connection 
between  the  tv;o  facts,  but  one  existing  in  the 
actual  ordering  of  Providence.  Although 
there  was  no  absolute  necessity,  God  made 
the  final  falling  away  of  the  Jews,  and  their 
breaking  up  as  a  people,  the  condition  of  the 
reception  of  the  Gentiles,  so  that  their  over- 
throw was  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
their  stumbling  the  riches  of  the  world.  So, 
in  his  sovereign  pleasure,  God  permitted  the 
overthrow  of  the  congregation  in  the  wilder- 
nes!^,  and  conditioned,  in  some  sort,  upon 
their  rejection  of  the  promise,  its  renewal  in 
a  later  age.  But  bow  "in  some  sort"?  I 
answer,  secondly,  that  the  .Tews  who  came 
out  of  Egypt  stood  in  much  the  same  relation 
to  the  .Jewish  people,  that  the  Jewish  nation, 
as  a  whole,  did  to  the  Gentile.«.  They  were, 
in  a  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  sense,  the  rep- 


resentative people  of  God  ;  they  left  Egypt, 
the  house  of  their  bondage,  under  Moses,  the 
great  type  of  the  Great  Spiritual  Deliverer; 
they  knew,  in  a  pre-eminent  degree,  what  it 
was  to  bear  the  yoke  of  oppression  ;  and  to 
them  came,  with  special  emphasis,  the  promise 
of  rest  from  toil.  A  few  months'  direct  jour- 
neying across  the  desert  would  have  brought 
them  from  the  "house  of  bondage"  to  the 
home  of  freedom  and  of  jo3\  Again,  the 
Jews  who  came  out  of  Egypt  were  the  first 
organized  people  of  God.  For  them  was 
raised  up  Moses — the  great  deliverer,  law- 
giver, prophet,  intercessor — who  stood  face  to 
face  with  God,  and  offered  himself  as  a  sacri- 
fice for  the  nation.  To  them  was  given  the 
law  from  Mount  Sinai;  to  them  came  the 
ordinances  of  the  Theocracy.  When,  there- 
fore, that  whole  body  perished  in  the  wilder- 
ness, together  with  their  leader,  Moses  ;  when 
not  a  man  of  those  who  came  out  of  Egypt 
under  Moses,  save  Caleb  and  Joshua  (and 
this  is  the  significance  of  the  "all,"  3  :  16), 
survived  to  enter  Canaan,  the  fact  was  of 
weightiest  import.  It  proved  that  the  conr 
gregation  in  the  wilderness  was  not  the  gen.^ 
nine  people  of  God,  and  the  coming  short, 
even  of  Moses,  showed  him  to  be  not  the  true 
spiritual  leader.  And  we  cannot  fail  to  re- 
mark that  in  allowing  both  the  people  who 
came  out  of  Egypt,  and  their  great  leader, 
all  alike  to  come  short  of  the  promised  land^ 
God  intended  to  mark,  signally,  their  merely 
t3'pical  character,  and  thus  justified  the  use 
made  of  it  by  our  author,  a|)art,  even,  from 
the  express  warrant  which  he  finds  for  it  in 
the  Psalm.  Once  more.  We  find  a  warrant 
for  regarding  the  failure  of  ancient  Israel  to 
enter  into  the  rest  of  God,  as  opening  the  way 
for  a  later  renewal  of  the  promise,  in  the 
general  development  of  God's  plans  and  pur- 
poses through  successive  stages  and  ages  of 
the  world's  history.  The  promised  rest  of  the 
people  of  God  is  not  in  the  writer's  concfp- 
tion,  or  that  of  the  New  Testament  generally, 
heaven,  as  an  existing  place  of  rest  for  each 
soul  as  it  leaves  its  fleshly  tenement.  It  is  a 
period,  an  age,  farther  down  the  track  of  the 
ages;    a  state  into  which  humanity,  or  the 


Ch.  IV.] 


HEBREWS. 


61 


7  Again,  he  limiteth  a  certain  day,  saying  in  David, 
To  day,  after  so  long  a  time;  as  it  is  said,  To  day  if  ye 
will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts. 

8  For  if  Jesus  liad  given  them  rest,  then  would  he  not 
afterward  have  spoken  of  another  day. 


7  bedience,  he  again  defineth  a  certain  day,  To-day, 
saying  in  David,  so  long  a  time  afterward  (even  as 
hath  lieen  said  before). 

To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice. 
Harden  not  your  hearts. 

8  For  if  '  Joshua  had  given  them  rest,  he  would  not 


destined  people  of  God,  are  yet  to  enter.  On 
the  relation  of  each  departing  individual  soul 
to  this  coining  state,  the  sacred  writers  be- 
stowed comparatively  little  attention.  The 
grand  object  of  their  view  is  not  the  unseen 
heavenly  world  in  distinction  from  the 
earthly,  but  the  corning  age,  with  its  glory, 
in  distinction  from  the  present.  To  the  Jew, 
that  coming  age  was  the  age  of  the  Messiah. 
To  the  Christian,  for  whom  the  Messiah  had 
come,  and  was  to  come  again,  the  coming  age 
(already  present,  from  the  Old  Testament 
point  of  view)  linked  itself  with  that  second 
appearing,  when  was  to  be  realized  to  the 
church  the  Sabbath  rest  of  God.  Regarded  as 
fln  epoch,  a  stage  in  which  humanity  reached 
its  final  goal,  the  promises  must  not  have  been 
earlier  fulfilled  and  exhausted.  Slow  but  sure 
is  God's  march  down  the  ages. 

7.  Again,  he  limiteth  {He  again  fixeth) 
a  certain  day,  saying  in  David — that  is, 
not  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  regarded  as  col- 
lectivelj'  by  David  (nor,  analagously,  to  "in 
Elijah"  (Rom.  11:2),  designating  a  part  of  the 
Scripture  treating  of  Elijah),  but  in,  for  by, 
David  personally;  and  this  the  more  prob- 
ably, as  the  Septuagint  attributes  this  Psalm 
to  David — after  so  long  a  time — that  is,  so 
long  a  time  after  the  early  promise  and  its 
forfeiture  (it  belongs  to  'saying').  To  day 
as  it  is  {hath  been)  said,  To  day,  if  ye  Avill 
(shall)  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your 
hearts.  The  first  'to  day'  may  be  taken 
separately  as  defining  the  'certain  day'  (he 
fixeth  a  certain  day;  namely,  'to  day'),  or 
(with  Delitzsch,  Kurtz,  etc.)  as  placed  em- 
phatically' before  'saying,'  and  then  repeated 
with  the  rest  of  the  quotation.  This  con- 
struction seems,  on  the  whole,  more  natural 
in  the  Greek.*  As  to  the  meaning,  there  is 
no  diflSculty.  The  parenthesis,  'as  hath  been 
said  before,'  is  thrown  in  by  way  of  half 
apology  for  the  renewed  repetition  of  the 
quotation  from  th.e  Psalm.  But  in  the  quo- 
tation lies  the  kernel  of  the  argument.     The 


'to  day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,'  etc.,  im- 
plies that  they  do,  or  will  again  hear,  the 
same  voice  of  promise,  whence  the  inference 
that  the  rest  of  Palestine  did  not  exhaust  or 
fulfill  it.  The  'to  day'  is  taken  as  substan- 
tially a  prophecy— a  prediction  that  the  gra- 
cious voice  of  God  would  again  sound  in  their 
ears,  and  an  entreaty  that  they  would  not, 
under  the  gracious  proffer,  renew  the  diso- 
bedience of  their  fathers.  The  'to  day'  is 
really  the  day  of  the  Messianic  epoch.  To 
the  Jews  as  a  people,  it  is  the  time  that  shall 
elapse  between  Christ's  summons  to  repent- 
ance and  the  sealing  of  their  destinies  in  his 
typical  return  at  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem. 
To  the  New  Testament  people  of  God,  the 
spiritual  Israel,  it  is  the  time  intervening 
between  his  first  coming  to  bring  the  gospel 
message  of  salvation,  and  the  final  coming, 
that  shall  fix  all  destinies. 

8.  For  if  Jesus  (Joshua)  had  given  them 
rest,  etc. — had  brought  thein  to  rest — he(Gf)d, 
or  the  prophet  on  his  behalf)  would  not  after 
this  be  speaJdng — (eAoAei,  the  writer  throws 
the  speaking  into  his  own  time) — of  another 
day.  An  irrefragable  inference  on  which  we 
need  not  dwell.  The  destruction  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Moses  proved  that  the  congregation 
in  the  wilderness  was  not  the  true  church  of 
God,  and  left  room  for  the  true  spiritual 
church.  So  the  promise,  renewed  long  sub- 
sequently to  Israel's  entrance  into  Palestine, 
proves  that  the  rest  of  Canaan  was  not  the 
true  rest  of  God.  Thus  the  author,  by  impli- 
cation, disposes  of  the  claims,  both  of  Moses 
and  Joshua,  in  comparison  with  Christ.  Moses 
broughtthe  people  out  of  Eg3'pt,  but  could  not 
bring  them  into  the  promised  land.  Joshua 
brought  the  nation  into  Canaan;  but  it  was 
not  the  true  rest  of  the  people  of  God.  We 
have  but  to  follow  the  st^ry  of  its  fortunes  to 
see  how  far  was  the  ancient  Israel  from  rest. 
Its  enemies  within  and  around,  its  civil  strifes 
and  foreign  wars,  its  apostasies,  its  captivities, 
its  enslavements — are  anything  but  the  record 


*  'El'  Aavct^  Arywc  with  (be  atjutpov  seems  more  natural.    Without  the  <r»)M«p<»'  we  should  expect  Kiyutv  iv  AavtiS. 


62 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


9  There  reuiaineth  therefore  a  rest  to  ihe  people  of 
God. 

10  For  he  that  is  entered  into  his  rest,  he  also  hath 
-ceased  from  liis  own  works,  as  God  did  from  liis. 

11  Let.  us  labour  tlierefore  to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest 
any  luuu  fall  alter  the  same  example  of  unbelief. 


9  have  spoken  afterward  of  another  day.    There  re- 
mainelb  therefore  a  sabbath  rest  for  the  people  of 

10  God.     For  he  who  is  entered  into  his  rest  bath  him- 
self also  rested  from  bis  works,  as  God  did  from  his. 

11  Let  us  therefore  give  diligence  to  enter  into  that 
rest,  that  no  man  fall  i  after  the  same  example  of 


I  Or,  into.    Or.  in. 


of  ii  nation  arrived  at  peace.  Had  Israel  been 
faithful  indeed,  God  must  iiave  fulfilled  his 
utmost  promises.  But  the  rebellions  of  Pales- 
tine repeated  the  rebellions  of  the  desert,  until 
at  last  the  star  of  Judah  was  quenched  in 
darkness  and  blood.  The  way  is  prepared 
fur  the  autiior's  final  conclusion. 

9,  There  remaineth  therefore — the  wri- 
ter triumphantly  concludes — a  rest  (a  Sab- 
bath rest,  a  Sabbatisrn^)  to  {for)  the  people 
of  God.  Sabbatism,  for  wliicli  the  previous 
word  "rest"  (KaTdnavm)  is  here  exchanp^ed,  is 
a  Hebrew-Greek  word,  found  but  once  in 
classic  Greek  ("  Plutarch  deSuperstitione,"  3), 
but  appositely  used  in  the  summing  up  of  the 
argument  by  which  the  typical  rest  of  Canaan 
is  carried  over  into  and  identified  with  the 
Sabbath  rest  of  God,  instituted  at  creation ;  a 
rest  as  much  superior  to  the  latter  as  the  God 
in  whom  lies  the  one  is  superior  to  the  Canaan 
that  vainly  proffered  the  other;  a  real  rest, 
with  its  heavenly  Jerusalem — a  city  with 
foundations — from  which  they  shall  go  no 
more  out;  a  real  Paradise,  where  they  shall 
"rest  from  their  labors,"  with  no  more  curse 
of  sin  and  toil.  One  step  further  by  way  of 
explaining  what  is  implied  in  this  Sabbatism. 

10.  For  he  that  is  entered,  etc. ;  or,  he 
wlto  hath  entered  into  his  (Grorf's)  rest,  he  also 
hath  himself  r''sted  [cea.'ied)  from  his  work,  as 
God  did  from  his  own.  God's  rest  was  a  real 
rest;  to  the  apprehension  of  his  creatures,  and 
in  every  applicable  sense,  he  entered  into  rest. 
So  with  his  creatures  who  enjoy  this  holy  Sab- 
batism. They  rest  from  the  toil  and  woe 
entailed  by  sin.  Emplo.yinent,  activity,  no 
matter  how  protracted  and  intense,  but  no 
toil !  Some  make  Jesus  '  he  who  entered  into 
rest,'  ns  the  Forerunner  of  his  people.  The 
thought  is  not  inapposite,  yet  less  closely  con- 


nected with  the  context,  and  a  reference  to 
Jesus  would  have  been  probably  made  more 
unequivocal. 2 

(4)  Reneioed  exhortation  in  vieio  of  the  re- 
neioed  promise  of  a  higher  rest,  and  based  on 
the  spiritual  and  searching  qualities  of  the 
word;  and  transition,  through  their  need  of  a 
sympathizing  highjiriest,  to  the  next  and  chief 
topic  of  the  Epistle.     (11-16.) 

II.  Let  us  labour  {be  zealous)  therefore 
to  enter  into  that  rest ;  that  is,  this  New  Tes- 
tament rest  of  God,  which,  designed  for  all, 
may  be  forfeited  by  any.  The  author  is  not  a 
fatalist.  Christ  suffered  death  for  every  man, 
but  individual  fidelity  must  appropriate  its 
benefits.  The  holy  Sabbath  rest  awaits  the 
collective  people  of  God;  but  each  must  make 
good  his  claim  by  persevering  to  the  end. 
"  He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved." 
(Matt.  10:22.)  Lcst  any  man  (that  no  man) 
fall  after  the  same  example  of  unbelief 
{disobedience) — literally,  in  the  same  exain- 
ple,  a  pregnant  expression,  I  think  equivalent 
to  after  the  example  of  the  same  disobedi- 
ence. Luther,  Alford,  Liineinann,  and  Kurtz, 
understand  it,  of  falling  into  (and  then  re- 
msiining  in)  the  same  disobedience  as  the 
Fathers,  and  like  them  becoming  a  warning 
example  to  others.  Many  others  (as  Chrys- 
ostom,  Bengel,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Moll)  inter- 
pret 'fair  as  equivalent  to  ])erish  (n-eaj/,  3  :  17) 
in,  or  by  way  of  giving  the  same  example  to 
others.  I  do  not  think  the  unemphatic  posi- 
tion of  'fall'  (n-e'o-j))  ill  tlie  Greek  decides 
against  this;  nor  yet  do  I  think  that  the  author 
is  thinking  of  them  as  an  example  to  others, 
but  rather  as  following  the  example  of  their 
ancestors.  I  think,  therefore,  the  rendering 
of  the  Common  and  Revised  Versions  sub- 
stantially right.* 


1  The  Com.  Ver.,  by  substituting  the  word  previously 
used,  'rest'  (as  if  It  were  (coTairauo-is),  has  thus  unfor- 
tunately taken  the  point  out  of  the  entire  argument. 

*The  aorist, 'he  who  entered,'  may,  with  the  Greek 
partiality  for  the  aorist,  easily  stand  for  the  perfect, 
"  he  who  hath  entered." 

3  The  word  inrdSciy/uia  {erample)  is  something  shoiim  in 
subordination  to  (««■<>),  either  to  imitate  as  a  copy,  or  to 


be  imitated  as  a  pattern.  Here  it  is  generally  taken  as 
example,  pattern,  in  whichever  sense  'fall'  (jre'o-jj)  be 
taken.  It  might,  perhaps,  here  be  taken  as  copy;  by 
way  of  copying  the  same  disobedience.  There  is  no 
reference  to  the  gospel  in  contra.st  with  the  dead  letter 
of  the  law  (Ebrard),  nor  strictly  to  its  enduring  charac- 
ter, though  this  follows  from  its  inherent  vitality.  It 
has  a  vital  force  as  coming  from  the  Living  God. 


Ch.  IV  ] 


HEBREWS. 


63 


12  For  the  word  of  God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and 
sharper  than  any  IwoedKed  sword,  pierciiiK  even  to  the 
dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  fpirit,  and  of  the  joints 
and  luarrow,  and  w  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart. 

13  Neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not  manifest 


12  disohedience.  For  the  word  of  God  is  living,  and 
active,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  aeid 
piercing  even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of 
both  joints  and  marrow,  and  quick  to  di.icern  the 

13  tiioughts  and  intents  of  the  lieart.    And  there  it  nu 


12.  Enforcement  of  this  exhortation  from 
the  nature  of  the  divine  word.  For  the 
word  of  God  is  quick  (living).  There  is 
probably  no  ground  for  finding?,  with  many 
ancient  interpreters  and  some  more  recent,  a 
reference  here  to  the  hypostatic  Logos,  nor 
probably  for  the  indirect  and  half  latent  ref- 
erence to  him  assumed  by  Delitzsch.  The 
context  suggests  the  meaning.  God's  words 
of  promise  and  threatening  and  command  to 
his  ancient  people  are  ringing  in  our  ears,  as 
not  to  be  trifled  with.  It  is  the  intrinsic  char- 
acter of  God's  utterances  (conceived  here  per- 
haps primarily  as  commanding  and  threaten- 
ing) that  are  described  first  as  living,  having 
in  them  no  quality  of  deadness,  but  partaking 
the  life  of  the  Being  from  whom  they  proceed, 
and  hence  never  falling  idle  or  vain.  And 
powerful  [energetic,  full  of  energy,  effective), 
sharper  {more  cutting)  than  any  twoedged 
sword.  A  sharp  sword  issues  (Rev.  i9 :  is)  out  of 
the  mouth  of  the  "  Word  of  God."  A  double- 
edged  sword  is  not  necessarily  sharper  than  a 
single-edged  one,  but  it  is  more  cutting,  as 
being  comparatively  all  edge.  Philo  says  of 
the  power  of  the  divine  word  that  it  is  "a 
cutter  of  all  things"  (rdjio?  cvniravTiav) ,  "divid- 
ing the  rational  soul  from  the  irrational" — a 
thought  akin  to,  but  less  spiritual  than,  that  of 
our  Epistle.  Piercing  (penetrating)  even  to 
the  dividing  (nepttrMos,  taken  actively,  the  di- 
viding, so  as  to  divide)  of  soul  and  spirit, 
and  of  (both)  the  joints  and  marrow.  The 
general  import  of  this  is  clear.  It  denotes  the 
judicially  penetrating  power  of  God's  word 
into  the  utmost  depths  of  our  nature.  But  the 
special  construction  is  difficult.  Hofmann 
constructs  'joints  and  marrow  of  soul  and 
spirit,"  a  construction  too  harsh  to  need  dis- 
cussion. But  whether  the  severing  is  of  soul 
from  spirit,  and  of  joints  from  marrow  (thus 
denoting  its  dividing  power  iirst  in  the  spir- 
itual, then  in  the  bodily  nature),  or  of  soul 
and  spirit  from  joints  and  marrow  (thus  divid- 
ing, as  it  were,  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
bodily  nature);  or  whether  it  is  a  dividing  of 
the  soul  and  a  dividing  of  the  spirit,  and,  if  so, 
whether  again  joints  and   marrow   are   also 


separately  divided,  or  whether  these  are  added 
in  apposition  to  soul  and  spirit  (namely,  soul 
and  spirit — that  is,  the  joints  and  narrow)  are 
points  not  very  easy  to  decide.  Delitzsch  in- 
clines to  the  dividing  of  sotil  and  spirit  as  one 
pair,  expressing  man's  inmost  spiritual  na- 
ture; from  'joints  and  marrow,'  another  pair, 
expressing  his  inmost  material  nature.  Oth- 
ers (as  Bengel,  Bleek,  Do  Wette,  Liinemann) 
take  'joints  and  marrow'  as  a  sort  of  emphatic 
apposition  of  'soul  and  spirit,'  to  wit:  soul 
and  spirit,  even  the  very  joints  and  marrow, 
the  terms  thus  figuratively  descriptive  of  soul 
and  spirit,  and  added  perhaps  to  accommodate 
the  representation  to  the  figure  of  a  penetrat- 
ing sword.  As  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  a 
sword  piercing  through  soul  and  spirit,  the 
author  gives  concrefeness  and  materiality  to 
the  idea  by  adding  'joints  and  marrow'  ;  the 
'joints'  expressing  the  bonds  of  connection, 
the  'marrow'  the  most  hidden  and  inaccessi- 
ble part,  and  thus  the  whole  expressing  the 
piercing  of  '  the  word '  to  the  deepest  recesses  of 
the  soul,  and  laying  them  open  to  the  day.  I 
think  the  'joints  and  marrow  '  are  appositional 
to  'soul  and  spirit,'  and  that  in  any  case  the 
dividing  is  not  betnyeen  different  substances, 
but  the  cutting  through  each,  as  of  successive 
layers.  And  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart  (kpitikos,  qualified 
to  discern,  discriminate,  and  judge).  The 
word  of  God  rules  with  discriminating  and 
judicial  power  within  the  province  of  man's 
inner  nature.  Penetrating  our  interior  being, 
it  sits  in  judgment  on  thought,  purpose,  and 
emotion.  The  sin  of  the  Israelites  consisted 
in  that  disobedience  which  originates  in  unbe- 
lief. The  heart  the  author  recognizes  as  the 
parent  of  sin,  and  this  is  reached  and  held 
under  judicial  cognizance  and  searching  sway 
by  the  word  of  God. 

13.  This  makes  a  natural  transition  from  the 
word  of  God  to  him  who  utters  it.  Neither 
is  there,  etc. — or,  And  there  is  no  creature 
that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight — the  'his' 
(avToO)  referring  to  'God,'  not  to  the  'word.' 
None  can  escape  his  searching,  all-ponotrating 
eye,  and  his  judicial  and  retributive  action. 


64 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IV. 


in  his  sight:  but  all  things  are  naked  and  opened  unto 
the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

14  Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great  high  priest,  that 
is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us 
hold  fast  our  profession. 


creature  that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight:  but  all 
tilings  are  naked  and  laid  open  before  the  eyes  of 
him  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 
14      Having  then  a  great  high  priest,  who  halh  passed 
through  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us 


But  all  things  are  naked  and  opened— 

laid  open,^  with  neck  bent  back,  like  Roman 
criminals,  exposed  publicly  with  bared  and 
bent  necks  (Perizonius  and  Aelian,  "Variae 
Historiae,"  12  :  58)  ;  or,  which  I  deem  more 
probable,  with  head  bent  back,  as  animals 
slaughtered  in  sacrifice;  or,  perhaps,  with  no 
special  archaeological  allusion,  simply  seized 
by  the  neck,  barenecked,  unveiled  unto  the 
eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do — 
with  whom  is  our  account  or  reckoning  (»rpb? 
Of  tjnif  6  Adyos),  the  word,  account  (Adyo«)  not 
having  in  this  clause  any  reference  to  its  use 
above.  The  whole  passage  is  powerfully  de- 
scriptive of  the  impression  produced  by  a 
contemplation  of  the  dealing  of  God  with  the 
ancient  Israelites,  and  the  danger  of  com- 
mitting those  sins  of  the  heart  in  which  consists 
the  essence  of  apostasy. 

14-16.  Transition,  by  means  of  this  exhor- 
tation, from  Christ  as  Leader  to  Christ  as 
High  Priest. 

14.  The  above  discussion  has  enforced  the 
need  of  religious  fidelity  and  the  danger  of 
provoking  the  divine  anger,  and  recalled  our 
need  of  a  High  Priest  who  can  aid  our  infirm- 
ities and  interpose  with  his  prevalent  interces- 
sion between  us  and  this  God,  whose  word  is 
so  searching  and  whose  judgments  are  so  ter- 
rible. This  furnishes  an  easy  transition  from 
Christ  as  Messenger  of  salvation  (superior  to 
the  angels),  and  from  Christ  as  Leader  of 
salvation  (superior  to  Moses),  to  Christ  as 
High  Priest  of  salvation  (superior  to  Aaron). 
Seeing  then  that  Ave  have,  etc.— better,  as 
in  the  Revised  Version,  Having,  then,  a  great 
high  prieat  who  hath  passed  throtcgh  (not 
into)  the  heave?is — Jesus,  the  Son  of  God — let 
us  hold  fast  our  confession.  The  connection 
of  the  'then,'  or  '  therefore^  {ovv)  is  not  to  the 
remote  reference  to  the  High  Priest  (2 :  n),  but 
to  what  immediately  precedes;  and  infers 
from  that  tiie  need  of  holding  on  to  their 
confession,  while  he  calls  up  at  once  the  only 
condition  of  this  holding  on ;  namely,  their 
having  an  all-sufficient  High  Priest  to  inter- 
cede and  to  succor.     The  writer  does  not  infer. 


from  anything  said  before,  the  existence  of  the 
High  Priest;  but,  exhorting  his  readers  to  re- 
tain their  Christian  fidelity,  he  assumes  the 
high  priesthood  as  an  indispensable  aid  to  its 
accomplishment.  Still,  while  I  do  not  think 
(with  Liinemann)  that  the  '  then  '  [ovv]  refers, 
primarily,  to  the  'having'  (exo""?),  neither 
would  I  (with  Delitzsch)  regard  it  as  exhaust- 
ing its  force  on  the  verb,  'let  us  hold  fast' 
((cpaToJuef).  It  is  partlj"^  (I  think  primarily)  to 
be  referred  to  the  verb  which  exhorts  them  to 
their  duty,  but  partly  to  the  participle  'hav- 
ing' {i\ovTe<:)  as  indicating  their  high  prerog- 
ative in  possessing  this  mighty  spiritual  ally. 
I  may  add,  as  a  reason  for  the  abruptness  with 
which  the  writer  introduces  this  participial 
clause,  that  in  view  of  the  terrible  picture 
which  he  has  just  drawn,  and  which  might 
well  intimidate  the  most  courageous  heart,  he 
hastens  to  present  the  brighter  aspects  of  the 
case.  He  precedes  the  exhortation  to  fidelity 
by  reminding  them  of  the  encouragement,  as 
well  as  incentive,  which  they  have  to  this. 
They  have  a  High  Priest  who  has  atoned  and 
can  intercede  for  sinners — a  great  High  Priest, 
mighty  before  and  with  God,  who  hath  passed 
through  the  heavens  (not  into,  but  through 
them),  beyond  the  limitations  of  the  created 
universe,  into  heaven  itself  (9:24) — the  abso- 
lute, the  highest  heavens  ;  the  absolute,  ubiq- 
uitous presence  of  God  ;  to  the  very  right 
hand  of  God,  whore  he  sits  as  an  equal,  and 
thus  completely  competent  to  mediate  between 
God  and  man.  'Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,'  em- 
braces both  his  natures — the  one  epithet  mark- 
ing his  humanity,  the  other  his  divinity;  the 
one  the  essential  condition  of  his  being  a  High 
Priest  (5:1),  the  other  of  his  High  Priesthood 
being  availing.  As  Jesus,  he  became  lower 
than  the  angels,  that  he  might  taste  of  death. 
As  Son  of  God,  he  was  exalted  infinitely  above 
them,  that  his  power  might  accomplish  what 
his  compassion  undertook.  Alike  his  com- 
passion and  his  power,  therefore,  his  humanity 
and  his  divinity,  encourage  us  to  'hold  fast 
our  confession,'  as  against  that  terrible  side  of 
our  relation  to  God  presented  by  the  fate  of 


'  T€Tf»ax»)Ai(7/ii«Va,  from  Tpaxn^^oi;,  a  neck. 


Ch.  IV.] 


HEBREWS. 


6& 


15  For  we  have  not  a  high  priest  which  cannot  be  15  hold  fast  our  confession.  For  we  have  not  a  hinh 
touched  with  (lie  feeling  of  our  iutirmities;  but  was  iu  .  priest  who  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our 
all  points  tempted  like  as  «'«  ar.',  (/«<  without  sin.  j        intirmities;   but  one  who   bath   been  iu  all  puinta 

16  Let  us  therefore  couie  boldly  unto  the  throne  of  16  tempted  like  as  ice  (ice,  ye/ without  sin.  Let  us  there- 
grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  fore  draw  near  with  boldness  unto  the  throne  of 
help  in  time  of  need.                                                                    grace,  that  we  may  receive  mercy,  and  may  iind 

I        grace  to  help  un  in  time  of  need. 


the  ancient  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  a  side 
wliich,  while  urging  to  obedience,  would 
drive  us  to  despair.  The  'confession  "stands 
as  representative  of  our  entire  Christian  char- 
acter. 

15.  This  verse  illustrates  the  gracious  aspect 
of  this  character  on  the  side  of  its  humanity. 
For  we  have  not  a  high  priest — who  can- 
not be  touched,  v)ho  is  not  able  to  sympathize 
with— our  iiifirinities.  The  negative  mode 
of  statement  is  mure  forcible,  because  more 
full  and  formal,  than  the  simple  affirmative 
(we  have  a  higli  priest  who  is  able,  etc.).  It 
contrasts  our  position  with  the  assumed  dark 
alternative.  The  ability  to  sympathizers  a 
tnoral  ability,  derived  from  community  of 
experience,  especially  in  suffering.  But  has 
been  in  ail  points  tempted  (tried)  like  as 
we  are — that  is,  proved,  tempted  in  all  things, 
similarly  to  us.  The  '  in  all  things '  (Kara 
wdvTa)  declares  the  universality  of  his  trials, 
not  the  completeness  of  the  resemblance.^ 
Yet  without  sin — equivalent  to,  apart  frotn 
silt.  This  belongs  not  to 'tempted,' — equiv- 
alent to  tempted  without  sin,  either  as  cause 
or  consequence;  nor  to  'in  all  things,' — 
equivalent  to  in  all  things  except  as  to  sin,— 
but  to  '  like  as  we  are'  {kclO'  AnoidrjjTa),  declaring 
that  his  temptation  was  after  the  likeness  of 
humanity,  except  as  to  sin.  From  this  ele- 
ment his  temptations  were  exempt.  "  The 
participation  of  Jesus  in  every  form  of  human 
suffering,  the  actual  stirring  of  his  impulses, 
liis  complete  sympathy  with  our  weaknesses, 
all  the  stern  reality  of  his  temptations,  have 
yet  found  no  slumbering  principle  of  evil  to 
which  thej'  could  attach  themselves."  (De- 
litzsch.) 

16.  Close  of  this  transition-passage,  with  an 
exhortation  to  avail  ourselves  for  our  needs  of 
the  aid  of  this  great  High  Priest.     Let  us 


therefore  come  boldly,  etc. — approachwith 
boldness,  with  joyful  confidence— unto  the 
throne  of  grace— not  the  throne  of  Christ, 
but  the  throne  of  God,  which,  since  Christ 
took  his  seat  by  his  side,  has  become  not  only 
i  the  "throne  of  Majesty,"  but  the  "throne  oJ 
[Grace" — a  throne  where  grace  is  exerci.sed, 
and  whence  it  descends  to  us.  The  allusion 
is  not  to  the  earthly  mercy  seat,  but  to  God"s 
gracious  throne  in  heaven.  To  this  we  may 
come  in  confidence,  relying  on  the  compa.s- 
sionate  sympathy  of  our  interceding  High 
Priest.  That  we  may  obtain  mercy  and 
find  grace — (in  the  original,  a  graceful  chi- 
asm). Mercy  and  grace  express  essentially 
the  same  quality  under  different  aspects. 
'Mercy'  regards  us  as  wretched,  sinful,  vic- 
tims of  disease,  sorrow,  and  death;  'grace,' 
favor,  as  helpless  and  without  claim,  objects 
of  gratuitous  and  unmerited  bounty.  To 
help  in  time  of  need — that  is, /or  season- 
able succor.  Some  (as  Bleek,  De  Wette, 
Liinemann)  refer  this  to  succor  during  the 
present  time  of  grace,  the  'to  day'  of  the 
renewed  promise.  Better  (with  Tholuck, 
Delitzsch,  Moll)  refer  it  to  our  weakness 
and  need  of  help  in  times  of  temptation,  as 
in  2  :  18.  Seasonable  succor  is  the  succor 
which  our  S3'mpathizing  High  Priest,  who 
has  been  himself  tempted,  brings  to  our  sea- 
sons of  temptations.  The  author  has  now 
launched  fairly,  in  this  transition,  on  that 
topic  of  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ  which 
was  his  main  destined  theme.  Each  of  the 
former  topics  has  terminated  in  the  high 
priesthood  of  Christ,  and  these  have  been 
almost  hurried  over  to  reach  the  main  argu- 
ment of  the  Epistle.  In  this  Epistle,  the  sac- 
rificial and  intercessory  priesthood  of  Christ 
appears  as  the  central  and  vital  fact  of  the 
gospel. 


1  ivnna<Txtiv,  to  suffer  with  ;  avixtraSflv,  lo  sympathize 
with,  have  community  of  jroOot,  affection,  condition, 
tttffering. 


"Kafl"  6/uioion7To,  after  the  likeness,  hy  way  of  similarity, 
an  expression  weightier  than  o/ixoiw;. 


66 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  V. 


CHAPTEK  V. 


T?OR  every  high  priest  taken  from  among  men  is 
A.  ordained  fur  men  in  things  perlaininij  to  God,  that 
he  may  ofler  both  gifts  and  sacritices  for  sins: 

2  Who  can  liave  compassion  on  the  ignorant,  and  on 
them  that  are  out  of  tlie  way  ;  for  that  he  himself  also 
is" compassed  with  infirmity. 

■  3  And  by  reason  hereof  he  ought,  as  for  the  people, 
so  also  for  himself,  to  otJ'er  for  sins. 


1  For  every  high  priest,  being  taken  from  amoog 
men,  is  appointed  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,  that  he  may  otter  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for 

2  sins:  who  can  bear  gently  with  the  ignorant  and 
erring,  for  that  he  himself  also  is  compassed  with 

3  infirmity,  and  by  reason  thereof  is  bound,  as  for 
the  people,  so  also  for  himself,  to  o£fer  for  sins. 


3.    CHRIST   SUPERIOR   TO    AARON. 

Christ,  tlie  High  Priest  of  tlie  New  Dispen- 
sation, superior  to  Aaron,  the  high  priest  of 
the  Old. 

Ch.  5.  (1)  Necessary  qualities  of  the  high 
priest.     (1-10.) 

(a)  He  is  tai<on  from  among  men,  that  he, 
as  man,  may  deal  tenderly  with  men.     (1-3.) 

(b)  He  assumes  the  office,  not  self-appointed, 
but  called  of  God.     (4.) 

(c)  Christ  received  his  priestly  office  from 
God.     (5,  6.) 

(d)  In  his  fleshly  nature  as  man,  Christ 
wrestled  with  the  fear  of  death,  and,  learning 
obedience  from  suffering,  was  perfected  for 
his  saving  and  priestly  work.     (7-10.) 

(a)  He  is  taken  from  among  men,  that  he, 
as  man,  may  deal  tenderly  with  man.  (1-3.) 
.  1.  For,  introducing  the  ground  of  the  pre- 
ceding exhortation,  and  comrficncing  the  great 
priestly  discussion  of  the  Epistle  by  stating 
the  necessary  qualities  of  the  high  priest. 
Every  high  priest — all  high  priests  without 
exception — [being)  taken  from  among  men. 
The  participle  here  is  not  attributive  ("  who 
is  taken,"  as  if  there  might  be  priests  that  were 
not)  ;  but  predicative,  'as  being  taken,'  since 
he  is  taken.  The  necessity  springs  from  the 
circumstances.  Angels  need  no  high  priest, 
devils  can  have  none,  man  alone  needs  him ; 
and  he  is  ordained  [constituted,  appointed) 
for  [on  behalf  of )  men  in  things  pertaining 
to  God.  (The  construction  of  the  original 
is  elegant  and  emphatic,  "'from  men  being 
taken  on  behalf  of  men  is  ordained")  The 
author  is  not  now  contrasting  our  Lord's 
priesthood  and  Aaron's;  both  must  be  men 
— the  Lord's  incarnation  is  a  pre-requisite  to 
his  priesthood.  His  office  is  in  'things  per- 
taining to  God.'  He  is  middle  man,  mediator 
between  man  and  God.  That  he  may  offer 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.     'On 


behalf  of  men'  is  specialized  into  "on  behalf 
of  sins" — for  their  forgiveness  and  doing 
away.  It  is  as  sinners  that  men  need  a  high 
priest,  and  this  mainly  for  expiatory  sacrifices. 
True,  he  offers  for  them,  not  merely  bloody 
and  expiatory  victims,  but  thank  offerings 
and  gifts  in  general.  This,  too,  is  on  account 
of  the  sinfulness  of  man,  who,  unfit  to  draw 
near  to  God,  needs  one  who  has  at  least  a 
ceremonial  holiness,  and  a  special  consecration 
to  this  duty.  Still,  no  ceremonial  holiness 
could  ever  be  for  a  moment  admitted,  except 
as  representing  a  real  holiness  lying  in  the 
background.  'Gifts'  (iipa),  offerings  without 
slaughter,  as  drink- and  thank-offerings.  'Sac- 
rifices' (Bvaiai),  slaughtered  victims,  involving 
blood  and  life.  The  offering  of  these  appears 
as  the  substance  of  the  high  priest's  media- 
torial function. 

2.  Connected  with  and  springing  from  the 
high  priest's  hmnan  character  is  his  priestly 
qualification.  Who  can  have  compassion, 
etc.,  or,  deal  gently^  with  the  ignorant  and 
erring.  A  characteristic  description  of  hu- 
manity in  its  twofold  aspect  of  a  darkened 
reason  and  moral  depravity,  and  one  in 
which  the  writer  assumes  half  unconsciously 
the  point  of  view  of  the  human  high  priest, 
and  gives  an  example  of  the  leniency  which 
he  is  describing.  For  that  {since)  he  him- 
self also  is  compassed  with  infirmity 
(ntpiKenai,  wcars  it  OS  a  garment,  is  clothed 
with  it).  As  knowing  experimentally  the  in- 
firmities of  humanity,  he  is  able  to  deal  gently 
and  sympathizingly  with  human  frailty  and 
error. 

3.  And — in  fact,  so  far  reaching  is  this 
infirmity — by  reason  hereof  he  ought  {is 
bound,  is  obliged),  as  for  the  people,  so 
also  for  himself,  to  offer  {make  offering) 
for  sins.  This  verse,  without  being  strictly  a 
parenthesis,  is  yet  parenthetical.  It  is  added 
as  an  incidental  expansion  of  the  thought,  'is 


*  titTpKoitaSeiv,  to  moderate  one's  passions;  hence, 
"treat  with  moderation  or  indulgence,"  a  word  in 
commoti  use  with  the  later  Stoics.    It  is  not  happily 


rendered  by  the  Common  Version, "  have  compassion 
upon." 


Ch.  v.] 


HEBREWS. 


67 


4  Aud  no  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself,  but 
he  that  is  called  ot  Uod,  as  was  Aaron. 

5  So  also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  a 
high  priest;  but  he  that  said  uuto  him,  Thou  art  my 
Sou,  to  day  have  1  hegotteu  thee. 


4  And  uo  man  taketh  the  honour  unto  himself,  but 

5  when  he  is  called  of  tiod,  even  as  was  Aaron.  So 
Christ  also  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  a  high 
priest,  but  he  who  spake  unto  him, 

Thou  art  my  Son, 

This  day  have  I  begotten  thee : 


compassed  with  infirmity,'  and  is  perhaps  to 
be  constructed  with  this  under  the  influence 
of  'for  that,'  since  («t«0  ;  "since  he  is  com- 
passed and  is  hound,"  etc.,  not  as  co-ordinated 
with  'ordained'  ((ca9i<rTaTai).  The  expression 
is  thrown  in  to  show  how  real  and  far-reach- 
kig  was  this  human  element  in  the  priest- 
hood. It  went  so  far  that  the  Levitical  high 
priest  had  to  offer  sacrifice  for  his  own  sins  as 
well  as  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  This  semi- 
parenthetical  character  of  the  verse  it  is  im- 
portant to  recognize.  Make  it  prominent, 
and  it  presents  the  Levitical  priesthood  in 
contrast  with  that  of  Christ,  while  we  look 
in  vain  for  its  antithesis  in  the  delineation  of 
Christ's  priesthood.  Regarded  as  incidental, 
and  a  merely  heightening  touch  in  the  por- 
traiture of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  whose 
essential  humanity  our  Lord  shared,  and  it 
needs  no  farther  notice.  It  is  just  a  moment- 
ary descent  from  the  level  on  which  he  is  here 
placing  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
priesthood;  a  momentary  diversion  from  the 
straight  line  of  parallel  between  them.  No 
doubt,  indeed,  that  a  prerogative  of  Christ's 
priesthood  is  here  suggested,  inasmuch  as  he 
has  been  above  declared  to  have  been  tempted 
in  all  points  similarly  to  man  apart  from  sin. 
Tims  though,  like  the  Aaronic  priest,  encom- 
passed with  infirmity,  he  had  not,  like  him,  to 
make  expiation  for  his  own  sins.*  Ought 
(©(freiAei,  is  bound)  ;  both  morally  and  legally, 
here  perhaps  there  is  no  intended  distinction. 

(6)  Christ  is  not  self-appointed,  but  called 
of  God.     (4.) 

4.  And  no  man  taketh,  etc. ;  And  not  to 
himself  does  any  one  take  the  honor,  but  [he 
takes  it]  being  called  by  God,  just  as  did  Aa- 
ron, Compare  the  Revised  Version.  If  '  take ' 
(Aaji/Jiftt)  has  in  the  first  clause  the  sense  of 
'arrogate,'  or  'assume  voluntarily,'  it  must 
be  understood  for  the  following  clause  in  a 
modified  sense  as  equivalent  to  receive  (5tx<- 
T<u).  I  think  it  has  this  modification.  'Aa- 
ron' is  not  put  here  for  the  priestly  line 
sprung  from  him,  but  simply  as  its  represen- 


tative, as  a  personal,  historical  illustration  of 
the  statement.  What  was  true  of  him  was  of 
course  true  of  all ;  but  it  was  specially  proper 
to  mention  him,  as  in  him  the  priestly  line 
began,  and  in  him  the  divine  call  stood  out  in 
special  prominence.  (ex.28:i.)  This,  too,  like 
the  preceding,  is  no  arbitrary  qualification. 
Obviously  those  who  are  to  minister  before 
the  Lord  on  behalf  of  sinners  must  be  chosen 
neither  by  themselves,  nor  by  the  guilty  race 
that  needs  their  intercession,  but  by  him  who 
is  to  be  placated.  A  self-constituted,  or  a 
man-constituted,  ministry  before  God  must  be 
without  validity  and  without  efficacy.  The 
Being  to  be  appeased  can  'alone  select  the 
means  and  agents  of  the  service. 

(c)  Christ  received  his  priestly  office  from 
God.     (5,  6.) 

5.  Having  enumerated  the  essential  qualifi- 
cations of  the  high-priesthood,  the  author 
shows  in  reverse  order  that  the\'  are  realized 
in  Christ,  and  in  their  utmost  completeness. 
The  latter  of  the  two  is  taken  first.  So 
also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be 
made  a  high  priest.  It  is  questioned  here 
whether  "glorified"  (efidfao-ei-)  is  equivalent  to 
"taking  the  honor"  of  ver.  4,  and  is  restricted 
to  taking  the  priesthood,  or  points  to  that 
kingly  exaltation  which  was  the  condition 
and  accompaniment  of  his  priestly  dignitj'. 
So  think  many  from  the  terms  'glor^','  'glori- 
fied,' whicli  elsewhere  describe  his  kingly 
exaltation  (2:9),  and  from  the  following  quo- 
tation, "Thou  art  my  Son,"  etc.,  which  points 
doubtless  to  his  elevation  as  king,  and  not  as 
priest.  Yet  it  is  hardly  natural  to  deny 
Christ's  assumption  to  himself  of  the  priest- 
hood by  den^'ing  his  assumption  of  the  king- 
ship, and  as  the  term  'glorified  '  seems  intrin- 
sically as  applicable  to  Christ's  priestly  as  to 
his  kingly  dignity,  the  author  might  easily',  in 
passing  from  the  earthly  priesthood  of  Aaron 
to  the  heavenly  priesthood  of  Christ,  use  a 
more  exalted  term.  But  he  {glorified  him) 
that  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  my  Son, 
to  day  have  I  begotten  thee.    This  citation 


1  Ilfpi  eauroO,  concerning  himself,  and  wepi  aixa.fni.uiv,  I  irtav  and  virip  aiiapTiiiv,  on  behalf  of,  in  relation  to,  al- 
WRcerniit^  «ms,  are  substantially  the  same  as  virip  at>9pi^-  I  though  the  prepositions  are  not  precisely  equivalent. 


68 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  V. 


6  As  he  saith  also  in  another  place.  Thou  arl  a  priest 
for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec. 

7  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when  he  had  offered 


6  as  he  saith  also  in  another  p/ace. 

Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever 
After  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

7  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  having  offered  up 


does  not,  of  course,  prove  the  bestowal  on  Christ 
of  the  priesthood,  but  it  most  appropriately 
prepares  the  way  for  it.  It  shows  that  the  king- 
ship which  was  a  condition  of  his  priesthood 
was  also  bestowed,  and  thus  leads  to  the  natural 
inference  that  he  received  also  his  priesthood. 
By  naming  the  bestower  of  the  priesthood 
periphrastically  as  the  one  who  exalted  him 
to  the  heavenly  Sonship,  he  strengthens  his 
proof,  and  enhances  the  dignity  of  the  per- 
sonage who  is  the  object  of  this  double 
honor. 

6.  As  he  saith  also  in  another  place 
(Pi.  110:4),  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after 
the  order  of  Melchisedec.  This  establishes 
the  point.  The  priesthood  of  Christ  was  di- 
vinely bestowed.  He  did  not  deem  the  eter- 
nal priesthood,  any  more  than  the  eternal 
filial  equality  with  God,  a  thing  to  be  rapa- 
ciously snatched  or  caught  at  {apiraynov,  Phil. 
2  :  6),  but  came  to  them  both  in  the  path  of  hu- 
miliation and  suffering,  and  he  received  them 
both  as  the  reward  of  his  lowly  and  faithful 
obedience.  God  called  him  to  the  priesthood 
as  he  called  Aaron,  but  to  a  priesthood  as 
much  higher  than  was  Aaron's  as  his  person 
and  work  were  nobler.  Where  his  high- 
priestly  work  commenced,  also,  is  not  neces- 
sarily here  intimated;  it  began,  doubtless,  on 
earth,  though  his  formal  and  full  high-priestly 
character  appeared  only  after  his  exaltation. 
The  words  'after  the  order'  are  not  here  to  be 
pressed;  they  are  explained  in  7  :  15  by  "after 
the  likeness"  (kotoi  riji'  ofioioTJjTa).  In  somedis- 
tinguishing  points  his  priesthood  resembled 
that  of  Melchisedec  rather  than  that  of  Aa- 
ron ;  in  fact,  combining  antitypically  all  the 
essential  features  of  both. 

(d)  In  his  fleshly  nature  as  7nan,  Christ 
wrestled  with  the  fear  of  death,  and,  learning 
obedience  from  suffering,  was  perfected  for  his 
saving  and  priestly  work.     (7-10.) 

This  priest,  thus  constituted  by  divine  call, 
appears  now  invested  with  the  second  attribute 
of  a  true  priesthood,  a  human  experience 
which  qualified  him  to  sympathize  with  all 
the  weaknesses  and  struggles  of  humanity. 
•Instead  of  uniting  this  attribute  with  the  pre- 
ceding by  and  {•tai),  the   author  elegantly 


brings  it  into  closer  connection  by  the  relative 
'who.' 
7.  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh— when 

he  had  descended  from  his  home  in  the  bosom 
of  his  Father,  when  he  had  veiled  his  Deity 
in  the  garb  of  a  true  humanity.  The  'days 
of  his  flesh  '  is  an  emotional  and  tender  state- 
ment of  the  fact  of  the  Kedeemer's  manhood. 
It  reminds  us  of  all  the  frailty,  the  tempta- 
tion, the  suffering,  the  death  to  which  'the 
flesh'  is  liable.  With  reference  to  our  Lord 
the  language  has  another  peculiarity.  With 
an  ordinary  man,  'the  days  of  his  flesh'  would 
have  a  purely  prospective  reference ;  they 
would  be  relative  to  his  subsequent  spiritual 
condition.  With  our  Lord  they  are  both  jtros- 
pective  and  retrospective.  They  denote  that 
dip,  so  to  speak,  from  the  level  of  his  eternal 
Godhead,  by  which  he  temporarily  descended 
from  his  infinite  and  purely  spiritual  height, 
in  order  to  re-ascend  to  it  with  his  glorified 
humanity.  'The  days  of  his  flesh,' then,  have 
in  the  case  of  Christ  a  peculiar  significance. 
They  mark  a  period  bounded  on  both  sides  by 
a  high  and  glorious  existence.  With  other 
men,  being  in  the  flesh  is  matter  of  necessity; 
it  is  the  condition  of  their  existence.  With  the 
Son  of  man  it  was  purely  voluntary;  he  became 
(not,  'was  made')  flesh.  The  author,  again, 
does  not  say,  ^during  the  days  (irapa  ras  »)>iepas) 
of  his  flesh.'  He  is  not  going  to  portray  the 
course  of  our  Lord's  earthly  life,  but  only  one 
single  striking  and  representative  scene  in  it. 
He  selects  as  specially  appropriate  to  his  pur- 
pose the  scene  in  Gethsemane,  as  illustrating 
with  pre-eminent  force  both  the  conflict  and 
the  triumph  by  which  our  Lord  acquired  his 
moral  perfection  as  high  ])riest.  When  he 
had  offered  up,  etc. — better,  offering  vp 
prayers  (entreaties)  and  supplications  with 
strong  crying  and  tears  unto  him  that  was 
able  to  save  him  from  death,  and  being  heark- 
ened to.  The  terms  '  entreaties '  and  '  supplica- 
tions'  have  no  essential  diflPerence  of  meaning; 
they  are  simply  doubled  for  emphasis.  The 
participles,  'oflTering  up'  and  'being  heark- 
ened to'  (i!po<r(viyKa<:  eiaaKovaSfis),  denote  single, 
not  habitual  acts,  and  clearly  point  to  a 
single  scene.    That  scene  is  the  agony  of  the 


Ch.  v.] 


HEBREWS. 


69 


up  prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying  and 
tears  unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from  death,  I 
and  was  heard  in  that  he  reared ;  | 


prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying  and 
tears  unto  him  that  was  al>le  to  save  liini  '  from 
death,  and  having  been  heard  lor  his  godly  lear, 


Garden.  There  our  Saviour  prayed  with 
strong  crying  to  'him  who  was  able  to  save 
him  from  death,'  and  of  course,  as  clearly 
indicated  by  this  language,  praj^ed  that  he 
might  be  saved  from  death.  The  description 
of  God,  as  one  able  to  save  from  death,  derives 
its  pertinency  from  the  character  of  the  prayer. 
With  drops  of  bloody  sweat  falling  from  him 
he  thrice  prayed:  "O  my  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  That 
this  was  the  approaching  death  of  the  cross, 
which,  under  the  urgent  temptation  of  Satan 
and  the  burden  of  human  guilt  rolled  myste- 
riously upon  him,  now  presented  itself  clothed 
in  triple  horrors,  cannot,  I  think,  be  reason- 
ably doubted.  That  the  Evangelist  does  not 
mention  'tears'  in  his  record  of  this  midnight 
struggle  constitutes  no  objection  to  our  view. 
Such  suffering  could  not  have  been  without 
tears,  and  in  that  picture  of  agony  and  bloody 
sweat  the  mention  of  -tears'  would  rather 
have  weakened  than  heightened  its  effect.  In 
the  present  brief  reference,  'tears'  form  a 
natural  element  of  the  scene.  Some,  as  De 
Wette,  extend  the  reference  to  the  Saviour's 
agonizing  on  the  cross.  But  as  there  was  then 
no  prayer  to  be  rescued  from  death,  and  as 
the  words  "being  hearkened  to"  evidently 
point  to  some  recorded  and  specific  fact,  it  is 
better  to  limit  it  to  the  prayer  in  the  Garden, 
in  which  Christ  did  actually  pray  for  deliver- 
ance from  death,  and  was  answered  with  to- 
kens of  the  divine  approval.  Besides,  this  scene 
of  encounter  with  temptation,  of  wrestling 
with  spiritual  adversaries,  is  more  pertinent  to 
the  writer's  purpose  than  the  mysterious  suf- 
ferings of  the  dying  hour.  And  was  heard, 
etc.  Being  heard  from  his  godly  fear,  or,  heark- 
ened to  from  his  pious  reverence.  Such  seems 
the  natural  force  of  the  words,  and  sustained 
by  the  connection.  Our  Saviour  prayed  in 
perfect  submission  to  his  Father's  will ;  his 
language  and  spirit  were,  "Not  my  will  but 
thine  be  done,''  and  therefore  he  was  gra- 
ciously listened  to,  and,  so  far  as  possible,  his 
prayer  was  answered.  Some,  supposing  that 
because  he  was  hearkened  to  he  could  not 
have  prayed  to  be  delivered  from  dying,  refer 


it  to  his  being  delivered  from  the  consequences 
of  death  («  eai/arow,  out  of  death),  from  re- 
maining and  going  to  corruption  in  the  sepul- 
chre, from  which  he  was  delivered.  But  we 
have  no  evidence  that  such  was  the  nature  of 
the  Saviour's  prayer,  and  the  language  here 
used  does  not  require  us  to  assume  it.  A 
prayer  need  not  be  literally  answered  to  be 
proved  acceptable  to  God;  all  that  this  in- 
volves is  perfect  submission  to  his  will.  Such 
was  our  Saviour's  prayer,  and  though,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  it  could  not  be  granted, 
yet  God  testified  his  perfect  approval  of  the 
filial  and  holy  reverence  manifested  by  his 
Son.  He  sent  his  Angel  to  strengthen  him 
for  the  ordeal  from  which  he  could  not  release 
him;  he  accepted  the  atoning  sacrifice  which 
he  made  for  sin,  as  he  could  not  have  done 
had  it  been  mingled  with  any  taint  of  imper- 
fection ;  and  crowned  the  demonstration  by 
raising  him  from  the  dead  and  exalting  him 
to  his  right  hand  as  King  and  Priest  forever. 
Here,  however,  the  more  immediate  reference 
seems  to  be  to  the  angelic  aid  which  was 
vouchsafed  to  his  filial  piet3',  which,  while 
fainting  and  almost  overwhelmed  by  terror 
and  temptation,  yet  exclaimed  in  absolute 
resignation :  "  Not  my  will  but  thine  be  done." 
The  Father  thus  immediately'  demonstrated 
that  the  prayer  was  heard  approvingly,  and, 
though  he  did  not  grant  the  agonizing  request, 
did  all  that  he  could  do  toward  granting  it  by 
strengthening  his  Son  for  the  conflict!  The 
word  used  {ilaaKovaeeii,  hearkened  to),  is  singu- 
larly appropriate'to  the  account  in  Luke;  and 
this  is  one  of  the  passages  which  in  this  Ep!s- 
tle  remind  us  of  that  evangelist.  (The  use 
of  aird,  from,  equivalent  to  because  of,  needs 
no  defense.)  If  there  seems  inconsistency 
in  Christ's  praying  to  be  saved  from  the  death 
which  ha  came  to  suffer,  in  his  wavering  in 
regard  to  the  act  which  was  to  consummate 
his  redemptive  work,  we  remember  that  he 
was  a  man ;  a  man  with  all  human  weak- 
nesses, except  sin  ;  a  man  open  to  temptations, 
and  here  pressed  with  such  temptations  as 
none  has  before  or  since  encountered.  That 
he  could  be  driven  thus  to  pray  proves  the 


70 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  V. 


8  Tlioush  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by 
tbp  things  which  he  sutfered  ; 

9  And  being  made  peifect,  he  became  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  thai  obey  him  ; 


8  though  he  was  a  Son,  yet  learned  obedience  by  the 

U  things  which  he  sutlered ;   and  having  been  made 

perfect,  he  became  uuto  all  them  that  obey  him  the 


terrible  force  of  the  temptation;  and  that, 
driven  into  offering  it,  he  still  retained  Unfal- 
tering submission  to  his  Father's  will,  en- 
liances  to  the  utmost  our  admiration  of  his 
integrity.  The  billows  of  hell  that  went  over 
him  could  not  shake  his  perfect  trust  in  God. 
On  the  t)ther  hand,  to  reduce  his  prayer  to  a 
request  for  what  could  and  would  be  granted  is 
to  disembowel  it  of  its  characteristic  merit.  It 
was  precisely  in  praying  under  almost  resist- 
less temptation  for  what  could  not  be  granted, 
and  yet  acquiescing  completely  in  the  divine 
decision,  that  his  obedience  displayed  its  lus- 
tre, that  he  earned  his  Father's  approval;  and 
only  as  thus  understood  does  what  the  author 
proceeds  to  say  of  him  in  the  next  verse  gain 
its  full  appropriateness  and  force. 

8.  Though  he  were  a  Son,  etc.  Al- 
though being  a  Son,  learned  from  that  which 
he  suffered  obedience.  He  prayed  agonizingly 
to  be  delivered  from  the  cup,  yet  aequi- 
escingly  drank  it.  The  language  implies  a 
yielding  to  something  from  which  his  na- 
ture recoiled,  and  against  which  he  had 
prayed — to  the  death,  I  think,  which  lay  be- 
fore him.  The  scene  of  the  cross  cannot  be 
included  in  the  "offering  entreaties,"  etc., 
because  it  was  in  submitting  to  this  that  he 
learned  obedience,  and  this  lesson  had  been 
already'  learned.  The  battle  had  been  already 
fought — the  assaults  of  the  devil  been  repelled, 
and  the  sins  of  men  borne  obediently  to  the 
cross.'  If  the  Saviour  prayed  for  deliverance 
from  the  consequences  of  death,  for  resurrec- 
tion from  the  tomb,  this  could  be  granted 
him,  and  furnished  no  te.st  of  obedience.  It 
was  in  acquiescence  to  the  divine  thivarting  of 


his  will  that  this  had  been  learned.  Rightly 
interpreted,  then,  the  entire  passage  falls  into 
harmony  with  itself  and  with  the  facts.  With 
strong  crying  and  tears  (Mark  14  :  33,  ixeafi- 
fi€icr8ai  Koi  aSrj)jLovelv ;  Lukc  22 :  43,  44),  he  prayed 
to  be  delivered  from  the  impending  death 
with  its  horrors,  and  his  filial  fear  and  piety 
secured  his  Father's  approval.  Yet  his  prayer 
not  being  granted,  he  bowed  to  the  divine 
will,  learned  obedience  in  his  sufferings,  and 
went  cheerfully  to  the  cross.  The  language, 
of  course,  is  not  to  be  taken  with  servile  liter- 
al ness.  Christ  was  always  obedient,  and  never 
had  in  him  any  taint  of  disobedience.  Yet, 
like  his  people,  he  had  to  be  tried  insuflVring; 
to  submit  to  what  revolted  his  nature,  and  to 
develop  in  suffering  that  spirit  of  obedience 
which  in  all  other  men  would  have  in  a  sterner 
sense  to  be  learned-  In  all  respects,  except  sin 
and  in  the  transcendent  magnitude  of  his  suf- 
ferings, he  shared,  and  in  sharing  learned  to 
sympathize  with,  the  trials  of  his  people.  His 
immeasurably  greater  included  their  immeas- 
urably less. 

9.  This  verse  closes  this  sketch  of  the  neces- 
sary qualities  of  the  high  priest.  Thus,  being 
made  perfect — or,  perfected :  internally,  in 
all  the  attributes  of  a  perfect  high  priest;  ex- 
ternally, by  going  through  temptation  and 
death  up  to  that  glory  to  which  he  was  to 
conduct  his  people  (2:10) — he  became  the 
author  of  (an)  eternal  salvation  unto  all 
them  that  obey  him.  Ministering  effect- 
ually in  divine  things,  he  did  for  men  really 
what  the  Levitical  priests  did  S3'mbolically. 
There  is  a  twofold  allusion  to  the  preceding 
verse.     He  prayed  in  vain  to  be  saved  from 


1 1  do  not  believe  that  the  scene  of  the  erucifixion 
was  a  scene  of  any  such  convulsive  outward  agony  as 
marked  the  struggle  of  Gethsemane.  'I  greatly  doubt 
if  the  'strong  crying  and  tears'  of  our  author  could  be 
applicable  to  it.  I  believe  that  the  great,  terrible,  deci- 
sive internal  conflict  was  fought  out  in  darkness  and 
solitude.  Our  Lord's  general  subsequent  manner  seems 
to  have  been  that  of  calmness  and  self-possession.  On 
his  way  to  the  cross  he  pointed  away  from  his  trials  to 
their  own,  the  weeping  daughters  of  Jerusalem.  He  ut- 
tered indeed  one  agonizing  cry  on  the  cross,  "  My  God, 
my  God,"  etc.,  but  this  in  borrowed  language,  and,  as  I 
think,  one  single,  simple,  self-contained  utterance  of 
inward  agony.    Otherwise  the  utterances  are  different.  1 


He  prayed  for  his  murderers.  He  extended  pardon  to 
the  penitent  malefactor,  promising  him  Paradise  with 
himself.  He  says  calmly:  "I  thirst."  Crying  with  a 
loud  voice,  he  committed  his  Spirit  to  his  Father.  The 
rendering  of  the  Common  Versioa,  sanctioned,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  by  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  is 
utterly  without  probability — "  When  be  had  cried  with 
a  loud  voice,"  etc.,  making  the  crying  and  the  com- 
mending two  separate  acts.  And  this,  1  believe,  is  all 
the  loud  crying  that  the  gospels  attribute  to  Jesus  on 
the  cross.  I  cannot  but  believe  his  deportment  there 
hiid  a  calmness  and  a  majesty,  even,  that  warranted  the 
centurion's  exclamation,  "  This  was  the  Son  of  Godl** 


Ch.  v.] 


HEBREWS. 


71 


10  Called  of  God  a  high  priest  after  the  order  of  j  10  >  author  of  eternal  salvation;  named  of  God  a  high 
Mc'lcbisfdec.  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

11  Of  whom  we  liave  many  things  to  say,  and  bard     11      Of  -whom  we  have  many  things  to  say,  and  hard 
to  he  uttered,  seeing  ye  are  dull  of  hearing.  |        of  interpretation,  seeing  ye  are  become  dull  of  bear- 


1  Gr.  cause 2  Or,  loAtcJk. 


death,  and  yielded  obedience  to  the  denial. 
On  the  other  liand,  on  all  wlio  obey  him  he  be- 
stows eternal  life.  As  disobedience  on  his  part 
would  have  ruined  his  atoning  work,  so  dis- 
obedience on  tlieirs  will  exclude  them  from 
its  benefits.  Again,  he  bestows  eternal  salva- 
tion who  iiimself  could  not  receive  a  tem- 
poral salvation.  The  infinitely  lesser  boon 
was  obliged  to  be  denied  to  him,  the  perfectly 
obedient;  the  infinitely  greater  boon  he  se- 
cures to  their  imperfect  obedience.  ("An 
eternal  salvation"  ((runipia)  is  contrasted  with 
the  temporal  salvation  {amieiv)  which  he  vainly 
prayed  f<»r.) 

10.  The  necessary  qualities  of  the  high 
priest  being  shown,  and  their  existence  in 
Christ  fully  illustrated,  the  author,  with  char- 
acteristic gracefulness,  glides  round  on  the 
pivot  of  the  present  verse  to  what  is  to  be  the 
next  great  topic  of  the  Epistle — the  Lord's 
Melchisedec  priesthood.  This  he  first  design- 
edly introduces,  and  then  pauses,  with  that  in 
mind,  to  administer  his  next  solemn  lesson  of 
rebuke,  exhortation,  warning,  and  encourage- 
ment to  his  all  too-unfit  hearers,  before  for- 
mally resuming  and  completing  the  great 
theme.  Called  of  God — or.  Being  saluted 
by  God;  that  is,  as  God  received  him  on  his 
ascension  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  meet- 
ing him  on  its  threshold,  and,  we  may  suppose, 
first  declaring  his  Sonship,  "Thou  art  my 
Son,"  etc.,  and  then  pronouncing  him  a 
Ligh  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchis- 
edec. 'After  the  order  (or,  likeness)  of 
Melchisedec,'  Christ  was  strictly  a  Priest,  a 
royal  Priest;  he  was  High  Priest  in  another 
element  of  his  priestly  character.  As  one 
who  had  offered  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  and 
with  its  blood  now  entered  the  heavenly  holy 
of  holies,  he  was  the  high-priestly  antitype  of 
Aaron.  The  author,  by  calling  him  "high 
priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,"  unites 
thequalitiesof  both  the  priesthoods — the  regal, 
untransferable,  abiding  priesthood  represented 
by  Melchisedec,  and  the  expiatorj',  interced- 
ing priesthood  sj'mbolized  by  Aaron.  "With 
the  one,  he  treads  the  heavenly  courts  in 
kingly  majesty  ;  with  the  other,  he  brings  an 


eflScient  ofll'ering.  But,  about  to  enter  on  this 
lofty  theme,  the  author  is  deterred  by  the 
reflection  that  it  lies  in  that  higher  sphere  of 
religious  truth  in  which  the  spiritual  slug- 
gishness of  his  readers  disqualifies  them  for 
following  him.  It  belongs  to  that  "wisdom" 
which  the  Apostle  Paul  reserves  for  "ma- 
ture "  (full-grown,  Te'Acioi)  believers.  His 
readers  are  not  neophytes— they  are  back- 
sliders; instead  of  advancing  on  the  path  of 
Christian  faith  and  knowledge,  and  thus  being 
prepared  to  enter  on  the  deeper  mysteries  of 
the  gospel,  they  have  fallen  back,  and  need  to 
be  confirmed  in  its  elementary  doctrines. 

(2)  Long  hortatory  2)assage,  suggested  by 
the  incapacity  of  the  readers  to  enter  on  the 
profound  discussion  before  them;  namely,  the 
2iriesthood  of  Christ.     (5  :  11-6  :  20.) 

(a)  Failure  of  the  readers  in  that  spiritual 
maturity  which  they  should,  by  this  time, 
have  attained.     (11-14.) 

11.  Of  (concerning)  whom — that  is,  Christ 
as  Aaronico-Melchisedec  priest;  or,  better, 
concerning  which  (taking  the  pronoun  o5  as 
neuter) ;  namely,  this  priesthood — we  have 
many  things  (or,  much)  to  say,  etc.— or. 
our  discourse  is  extended  (n-oXu?),  and  difficult 
of  explanation.  The  "who"  (or,  "which") 
can  scarcely  refer  to  Melchisedec  (as  by 
many),  of  whom,  in  fact,  he  has  very  little 
to  say,  a  single  sentence  comprising  all  that 
he  has  to  say  of  his  history,  and  three  or  four 
sentences,  of  his  entire  personality;  while  the 
many  mysteries  which  the  fertile  brain  of 
expositors  has  spun  out  of  the  brief  state- 
ment regarding  Melchisedec  are  evidently 
not  in  our  author.  He  simply  takes  the 
Old  Testament  record  regarding  Melchisedec 
to  illustrate  the  import  of  the  passage  in  the 
Psalm,  and  we  cannot  conceive  it  possible 
that  he  should  have  paused  on  the  eve  of  his 
most  solemn  and  profound  discussion,  to  chide 
his  readers  for  ignorance  respecting  some 
curious  and  recondite  subtleties  regarding 
Melchisedec.  It  is  the  double  priesthood  of 
our  Lord  in  which  our  author  finds  the  core 
and  centre  of  the  gospel,  and  which  he  feels 
demands  more  than   the  sluggish   ears   and 


72 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  V. 


12  For  when  for  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye 
have  need  that  one  teach  you  again  which  be  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God  ;  and  are  become  such 
as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of  strong  meat. 

Vi  For  every  one  that  uselb  milk  is  unskilful  in  the 
word  of  righteousness :  for  he  is  a  babe. 

14  But  strong  meat  belongeth  to  them  that  are  of 


12  ing.  For  when  by  reason  of  the  time  ye  ought  to 
be  teachers,  ye  have  need  again  •  that  some  one  teach 
you  the  rudiments  of  the  ^fnst  principles  of  the 
oracles  of  God ;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need 

13  of  milk,  and  not  of  solid  food.  For  every  one  that 
partaketb  of  milk  is  without  experience  of  the  word 

14  of  righteousness  ;  for  he  is  a  babe.  But  solid  lood 
is  for  3 full  grown  men,  even  those  who  by  reason  of 


I  Or,  that  one  teach  you  which  arc  the  rudimentB i  Gr.  beginning i  Or,  perfect. 


feeble  intellects  of  spiritual  infancy.  The 
high  priesthood,  in  which  each  of  the  two 
previous  sections  has  ended,  has  thus  made  all 
that  preceded  but 

"  A  swelling  prelude  to  the  imperial  theme," 

to  which  he  was  hastening  to  conduct  his 
readers.  Seeing  ye  are  dull,  etc. — Since 
ye  have  become  sluggish  in  hearing.  The 
words  refer  to  the  last  preceding  epithet, 
hard  of  explanation,  not  to  the  muck,  ample 
(ttoAvs),  as  if  it  were  the  dullness  of  his  hearers 
that  required  expansion  of  the  topic.  In  itself, 
it  would  be  fertile  in  matter,  and,  of  cour.se, 
difficult  of  comprehension,  except  to  advanced 
believers.  His  readers  were  dull  of  spiritual 
comprehension,  expressed,  figuratively  and 
Hebraistically,  by  hearing.  Sharpness  or  dull- 
ness of  vision  naturally  allies  itself  with  more 
or  less  of  spiritual  perspicacity' — that  of  hear- 
ing with  docility  or  intractableness  of  temper. 
And  the  readers  not  only  were  so,  but,  what 
is  worse,  had  become  so.  They  had  been  not 
merely  stationary ;  they  had  retrograded. 
Once  flourishing  in  their  Christian  life(6:i0; 
10:. 12),  they  had  encountered  trials  which,  fail- 
ing to  withstand,  they  had  sunk  below  their 
earlier  level,  and  were  in  imminent  danger  of 
spiritual  shipwreck. 

12.  For  when  for  the  time  ( for  while  on 
account  of  the  tiine  of  your  prof essed  Christia^i 
life)  ye  ought  to  be  teachers.  The  law  of 
the  Christian  life  is  progress— growth  in  grace 
and  spiritual  knowledge.  The  pupil  of  to-day 
should  be  the  teacher  of  to-morrow.  Ve  have 
need  {again,  just  as  at  the  first)  that  we  teach 
you  tohnt  are  (nVa  «<rTii') — or,  that  one  (nvei), 
teach  you  the  first  jirinciples  of  the  oracles  of 
God.  Lachmann — [tivo.)  some  one;  Tischen- 
dorf — (tiva)  what  are.  The  sense  is  indiflTerent, 
and  in  grammar  they  are  equally  allowable. 
What  (tiVo)  xn&y,  as  often,  be  taken  as  equal 
to  "of  what  sort"  (-noia),  and,  of  course,  it  is 
to  be  so  taken  here.  These  Christians  need 
anew  to  have  the  nature  of  those  elements 
unfolded  to  them.     For  "elements"  (<rToix«io), 


see  Gal.  4:9;  Col.  2  :  8,  20.  There,  however, 
the  term  denotes  the  Old  Testament  begin- 
nings of  God's  culture  of  humanity,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  riper  truths  of  the  gospel  ; 
here  the  more  elementary,  as  contrasted  with 
the  more  advanced  truths,  of  the  gospel  itself. 
"Oracles"  (Adyta,  words,  utterances)  are  in 
Acts  7:38;  Rom.  3  :  2,  the  Old  Testament 
revelations,  whether  directly  regarding  Chri.st 
or  not;  here  they  are  God's  entire  disclosures 
regarding  his  Son.  And  are  become  such 
as  have  need  of  milk,  and  not  of  strong 
meat  (or,  solid  food).  A  similar  figure  is  found 
in  1  Cor.  3  :  2,  with  a  difference  in  the  Greek 
word  for  'food.'  The  words  'babes'  (f^irtoi), 
and  'full  grown,'  'mature,'  'perfect'  (reAeioi), 
are  common  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
author  enumerates,  a  little  below,  some  of  the 
more  rudimentary  doctrines  (the  milk  of  the 
word),  while  the  doctrines  of  Christ's  high 
priesthood  belong  to  the  truths  wliich  need 
the  mature  to  grapple  with  them.  They  are 
too  strong  for  the  spiritual  feebleness  into 
which  these  Hebrews  have  fallen.  Of  course, 
their  incapacity  is  relative,  not  absolute; 
otherwise  the  author  would  not  proceed  with 
them  to  the  discussion. 

13.  For  every  one  that  useth  (pnrtak- 
eth  of)  milk — whose  proper  nourishment  is 
milk,  and  who,  by  consequence,  is  unable  to 
bear  other  kinds  of  food — such  is  the  char- 
acteristic of  infants  (yij^iot) — is  without  exper- 
ience of  the  word  (or,  in  a  doct7nne)  of  right- 
eousness—th&t  is,  a  doctrine  (Adyos)  which 
treats  of  righteousness — which  is  the  grand 
scope  of  the  New  Testament:  or,  a  Avord  or 
discourse  of  righteousness — (referring  to  the 
capacity  for  its  utterance)  like  "a  word  of  wis- 
dom "  (Adyos  <ro*ios),  a  "  word  of  knowledge." 
So  Delitzsch,  who  finds  in  this  a  covert  anti- 
thesis to  the  babe  (infant,  not  speaking,  v^wtos) 
of  the  following  clause,  for  he  is  a  babe- 
unable  to  receive  and  digest  the  higher  truths 
of  the  gospel. 

14.  Butstrongmeat,  s&^irf/oorf(//(^//i<;//<?r, 
more  difficult  doctrines  of  the  gospel),  is  for  full 


Ch.  VI.] 


HEBREWS. 


73 


fill!  age,  even  those  who  bv  reason  of  use  have  their 
senses  exercised  to  discern  both  good  and  evil. 


use  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern  good  aud 
evil. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THEREFORE  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  | 
of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfeclion  ;  not  Uiying 
again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works, 
and  of  faith  toward  God, 


1  Wherefore  leaving  '  the  doctrine  of  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  Christ,  let  us  press  on  unto  ''perfection  ;  not 
laying  again  a  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead 


1  Gr.  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ 2  Or,  full  growth. 


^rown  men  (TeAettoi/,  perfect,  mature ;  who, 
because  of  habit — moral  state  or  condition 
acquired  by  use  and  training — tflos,  custom; 
€f«,  habitus,  habit,  abiding  state,  resulting 
from  custom)  have  their  senses  (organs  of 
sense,  aiaflijrijpio,  perceptive  faculties,  here,  of 
spiritual  perception)  exercised  [disciplined, 
trained  gymnastically)  to  discern  both 
good  and  evil — for  tlie  discrimination  of  the 
sound  and  unsound  in  religious  teaching. 
The  figure  seems  here  wholly  dropped. 


Ch.  6.  Exhortation,  warning,  and  encour- 
agement to  the  readers. 

(6)  To  this  condition  of  spiritual  maturity 
just  described  the  writer  exhorts  his  readers  to 
hasten  forward,  and  not  linger  among  the 
elements  of  the  religious  life.  He  alarms 
them  with  the  possibility  that  their  backslid- 
ing may  become  irretrievable,  but  assures 
them  of  his  better  and  brighter  hope  for  them. 
(1-8.) 

1-3.  Exhortation  to  quit  the  first  principles 
of  the  gospel  and  advance  to  maturity. 

1.  Therefore  (in  view  of  the  unsatisfac- 
toriness  of  this  state  of  spiritual  infancy) 
leaving  the  (first)  principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  (the  initial  doctrine  ofj 
Christ),  let  us  go  on  (bear  ourselves  on, 
hasten,  speed  onuiard:  such  is  the  force  of 
<t>fpu>iJLe9a)  to  maturity.  It  is  questioned 
whether  the  advancement  here  urged  is  that 
of  the  author,  quitting  in  discussion,  along 
with  his  readers,  the  elementary  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  and  proceeding  to  the  higher; 
or  of  his  readers,  leaving  practically  their 
state  of  spiritual  infancy  for  the  maturity 
so  befitting  their  profession.  Does  he  as  an 
author  exhort  them  to  follow  him  to  the 
higher  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  or  as  a 
spiritual  teacher  urge  them  to  higher  spiritual 
attainments,  using  the  plural  "  we"  from  mod- 
esty and   conciliation?    Partially,   I  believe 


with  Delitzsch  that  both  are  implied.  The 
words  "leaving"  {a^evrt<:,  letting  go,  quitting), 
and  "laying  down"  (KarajSaAAdfiei'ot)  as  foun- 
dations, seem  more  especially  appropriate  to 
the  course  of  a  discussion  in  which  writer  and 
readers  advance  together  from  point  to  point, 
and  lay  down,  or  refrain  from  laying  down, 
fresh  foundations.  But  while  the  passage,  as 
to  form,  opens  -in  this  way,  its  general  char- 
acter and  connection  clearly  make  it  a  practi- 
cal exhortation.  To  this  refer  the  words 
"therefore,"  "let  us  hasten,"  'and  "matu- 
rity" (TeAetoTTis,  which,  used  of  a  discussion, 
should  be  ra.  riktia,  the  things  xvhich  are  ma- 
ture); the  weighty  "provided  that  God  per- 
mit"— words  too  significantly  solemn  to  apply 
to  a  mere  discussion  ;  and,  above  all,  to  the  fol- 
lowing verses,  which  show  that  if  the  writer 
began  with  some  slight  coloring  of  the  au- 
thor s  exhortation  to  more  advanced  discus- 
sion, it  is  immediately  merged  in  the  teacher's 
and  preacher  s  urgent  summoning  to  higher 
practical  attainments;  to  hasten  indeed  from 
a  condition  which  is  not  only  unsatisfactory, 
but  alarming.  The  urgent  '  let  us  speed  on  to 
maturity'  marks  danger  that  their  present 
condition  may  become  permanent,  and  indeed 
an  apprehension  that  it  may  be  already  hope- 
less, and  they  like  reprobate  land  given  over 
to  the  burning.  The  appeal  comes  to  them, 
like  the  angel's  summons  to  Lot:  "  Up,  get  ye 
out  of  this  place"  ;  and  I  incline  to  tliink  that 
ver.  8  has  in  mind  the  doom  of  Sodom.  Not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repent- 
ance from  dead  works,  and  of  faith 
toward  God.  The  'again'  might  apply  to 
renewing  the  foundations  in  discussion,  or  re- 
newing the  foundations  in  practical  life.  The 
two  ideas  seem  blended,  as  if  he  would  say : 
"  Leave  these  foundations  of  mere  elementary 
truth  ;  they  belong  to  your  primitive  spiritual 
state.  If  they  have  been  laid  once,  tliey  need 
not  be  laid  again  ;  if  they  have  been  laid  and 
abandoned,  they  cannot  be   laid   again.     He 


74 


HEBKEWS. 


[Ch.  VL 


2  Of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  I 
bands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment.  | 


2  works,  and  of  faith  toward  God, '  of  the  teaching  of 
2  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resur- 

3  rection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  Judgment.    And 


1  Some  ancieot  aulhuritiea  read,  even  the  teaching  of 2  Or,  washings. 


therefore  will  not  stop  to  relay  them  in  dis- 
cussion, nor  must  they  in  life  and  practice. 
Not  indeed  are  they  to  ignore  and  abandon 
them,  but  to  assume  them  and  speed  forward. 
'Foundation'  denotes  in  1  Cor.  3  :  11,  Jesus, 
the  ultimate  foundation  ;  here,  the  proximate 
foundation,  the  relatively  fundamental  truths 
of  the  gospel. 

What  this  foundation,  this  elementary  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  is,  the  author  now  informs 
us.  It  is  sixfold,  distributed  into  three  pairs, 
arranged  in  logical  succession.  The  first  pair 
is  fundamental  to  the  Christian  life,  'Repent- 
ance from  dead  works' ;  not  the  works  of  the 
law,  as  dead  works  (Gai. 3:21 ;  4:9),  but  works 
which  have  in  them  no  vitality;  spiritually 
dead,  and  of  course  also  deadly.  Such,  too, 
would  be  works  of  law  when  purely  legal, 
merely  formal,  hollow  observances.  With  re- 
pentance is  connected  "faith  toward  God,"  as 
its  accompaniment  and  cause;  the  two,  indeed, 
chronologically  simultaneous;  born  together 
under  tlie  same  quickening  act  of  the  Spirit. 

2.  The  second  pair  of  elementary  principles 
pertains  to  rites  of  the  church.  Of  the  doc- 
trine of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of 
hands.  There  is  here  a  somewhat  difficult 
question  of  construction.  A  few  (as  Winer, 
Kurtz)  construct  "teaching"  or  "doctrine" 
after  'baptisms';  'baptisms  of  teaching,'  or 
teaching-baptisms — that  is,  baptisms  followed 
by  teaching  (as  Matt.  28  :  19,  20,  baptizing, 
teaching).  Others  make  'baptisms'  depend- 
ent on  'doctrine' — 'the  doctrine  of  baptisms'  ; 
while  the  majority,  as  Bleek,  Delitzsch,  Moll, 
etc.,  connect  it  equally  with  all  the  following 
nouns ;  as  doctrine  of  baptis7ns,  of  laying  on 
of  hands,  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of 
eternal  judgment.  I  think  it  difficult  to  de- 
cide, and  there  may  have  arisen  questions  in 
the  primitive  church  regarding  baptism,  as  its 
relation  to  Jewish  lustrations  ("divers  bap- 
tisms," 9  :  10),  and  to  John's  baptism,  which 
did  not  arise  in  regard  to  the  other  points  men- 
tioned. On  the  other  hand,  all  these  great 
subjects,  especially  the  resurrection  and  the 
judgment,  may,  and  in  fact  must,  often  have 
demanded  careful  instruction.  The  plural 
"baptisms"  refers,  perhaps,  to  those  various 


questions  which  would  arise,  especially  with 
converts  from  Judaism  or  from  John's  bap- 
tism, as  was  the  case  with  Apollos  at  Ephesus, 
where  Apollos,  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures," 
but  knowing  only  the  baptisin  of  John,  was 
taught  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly.  The 
imposition  of  hands,  though  not  probably  fol- 
lowing regularly  on  baptism,  had  an  import- 
ant connection  with  the  bestowal  of  spiritual 
gifts.  The  third  class  or  pair  of  truths, 
'Resurrection  of  the  dead  and  eternal  judg- 
ment,' though  differing  frotii  the  first  in  charac- 
ter (but  more  vital  than  the  second),  is  equally 
fundamental.  They  evidently  went  deep,  in- 
deed, into  the  apostles'  teachings  and  the  life 
of  the  early  church,  as  we  see  in  the  Epi.-tles 
to  the  Corinthians  and  Thessalonians,  and  in 
Paul's  discourse  before  the  Athenian  Areopa- 
gus. The  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  guar- 
anteed by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  stood 
in  vital  connection  with  it.  (1  Cor.  15 :  15, 16.)  The 
'eternal  judgment'  is  the  final  judgment, 
whose  issues,  unlike  those  of  preceding  judi- 
cial dispensations — the  Flood,  the  overthrow 
of  Sodom,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem — are 
final  and  eternal.  But  how  reconcile  the  de- 
claration that  these  Hebrew  Christians  need 
to  be  taught  anew  the  first  principles  of  the 
gospel  with  the  exhortation  to  leave  them  and 
hasten  on  to  perfection.  We  reply  that  the 
language  is  in  such  cases  relative  and  not  absv'- 
lute.  They  are  not,  on  the  one  hand,  con- 
ceived to  be  totally  incapable  of  apprehending 
higher  truths,  nor  on  the  other  counseled  to 
forsake  the  elementary.  There  is  force  in  the 
present  participle  ((caTa^aAXoneroi),  endeavoring 
to  lay,  busying  themselves  in  laying  founda- 
tions. Regarded  as  foundations,  they  are  to 
be  laid  once  for  all,  and  built  upon  as  lying  at 
the  base  of  the  Christian  edifice.  They  are 
not  disparaged,  but  exalted.  Among  these 
the  'laying  on  of  hands'  may  with  the  ceas- 
ing of  miracles  have  become  of  less  moment. 
The  rest  retain  their  full  primitive  significance. 
Repentance,  faith,  baptism,  the  resurrection, 
and  the  judgment  are  grand  pivots  around 
which  the  whole  Christian  sj'stem  revolves,  in 
all  ages,  cardinal  elements  of  Christian  doc- 
trine and  life. 


Ch.  VI.] 


HEBKEWS. 


75 


3  And  this  will  we  do,  if  God  permit. 

4  For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  were  once  enlight- 
ened, and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were 
iiiadc  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

5  And  have  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the 
powers  of  the  world  to  couie. 


4  this  will  we  do,  if  God  permit.  For  as  touching 
those  who  were  once  enliglitened  i  and  tasted  of  the 
heavenly  gift,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy 

5  Spirit,  and  « tasted  the  good  word  of  tiod,  and  the 


1  Or,  haoing  both  tasted  of  .  .  .  and  being  made  .  .  .  and  having  tatted,  etc  'i  Or,  tasted  the  word  o/  God  that  it  is  good. 


3.  And  this  will  we  do.  (So  Tischendorf, 
with  Sinaitic,  Lachmann.  Bleek,  Lunomann, 
Delitzsch,  Moll — "Let  us  do,"  witii  no  material 
ditference  in  sense.)  If  (more  emphatic,  idvnfp, 
provided  that)  God  permit.  That  this  is 
none  of  the  commonplaces  of  deference  to  the 
divine  will  is  shown  both  by  the  emphatically 
expressed  condition,  intimating  that  some 
obstacle  may  lie  in  the  way,  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  duty  to  which  it  is  affixed.  A  duty  like 
that  of  spiritual  advancement  is  usually  urged, 
not  provided  that  God  allows  it,  but  because 
God  requires  it.  A  condition,  therefore,  so 
emphatically  expressed,  appended  to  such  an 
exhortati(m,  implies  sometliing  peculiar  and 
extraordinary  in  the  cimdition  of  the  persons 
addressed.  The  writer  has  exhorted  his  read- 
ers to  speed  their  way  to  the  higher  grounds  of 
Christian  maturity,  and  he  sharpens  his  ex- 
hortation by  reminding  them  that  their  effort 
may  become  soon,  and  has  possibly  become 
already,  too  late.     The  success,  nay,  the  very 


spiritual  vision.  See  10:32,  "And  call  to 
mind  the  former  days  in  which,  after  ye  were 
illuminated,"  etc.,  the  latter  passage  cer- 
tainly implying  regeneration.  Aud  tasted 
the  heavenly  gift.  'Tasted,'  not  in  contrast 
with  a  deep  and  full  experience,  but  an  elegant 
and  enhanced  expression  of  the  idea  of  exper- 
iencing, enjoying,  as  at  2:  9,  "tasted  death  for 
every  man."  By  transferring  the  idea  to  that 
bodily  sense  which  ministers  to  our  most  vivid 
animal  delights,  the  thought  gains  in  force  and 
vividness.  '  The  heavenly  gift'  is  the  boon  of 
salvation,  the  saving  grace  of  the  gospel.  And 
were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Not  merely  of  his  miraculous,  but  of  his  en- 
lightening and  quickening  influences  (Eph.  i :  i3). 
"In  whom  also  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were 
sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  Al- 
lusion, however,  is  probably  made  to  the  special 
and  partly  miraculous  influences  which  in  the 
early  church  so  often  followed  upon  conver- 
i  sion.     ( Ver.  4  may  be  constructed  thus,  "those 


existence,  of  their  religious  striving,  depends  j  once  for  all  enlightened  both  by  tasting  and 


on  the  divine  approval  and  co-operation;  if 
that  be  withheld,  it  will  be  unavailing.  The 
doubt  is  not  whether  persons  having  aposta- 
tized from  their  former  high  religious  condi- 
tion could  be  recovered,  but  whether  they 
have  actually  apostatized.  If  they  are  only 
in  imminent  danger  of  it,  God  will  bless  their 
and  his  eftbrts  to  restore  them;  if  otherwise, 
their  recovery  is  hopeless. 

4-8.  These  verses  assign  the  reason  of  the 
above  ominous  condition,  'provided  that  God 
permit' ;  for  it  is  doubtful  if  God  will  permit, 
and  depends  on  the  degree  to  which  your  de- 
fection has  advanced. 

4.  For — as  to  whether  God  will  permit  this 
advancement — it  is  impossible — not  exceed- 
ingly difficult,  a  quasi  impossibility,  but  from 
the  inherent  necessities  of  the  case,  or  the  laws 
of  God' s  gracious  economy,  or  both,  absolutely 
impossible  (so  10:  26-38)  —  for  those  who 
were  once  {once  for  all)  enlightened — at 
once  brought  into  the  light  and  endowed  with 


being  made  partakers,"  etc.,  the  participial 
clauses  defining  instrumentally  the  elements 
of  the  illumination.  The  idea  is  but  slightly 
different.) 

5.  And  tasted  the  good  word  {an  excel- 
lent word  or  utterance)  of  God.  Not  'the 
good  word  of  God,'  as  containing  truth  or 
doctrine  (Aoyo?),  but  an  excellent  word,  as 
something  spoken  (pw<»),  utterance,  ordinance, 
decree,  promise,  very  probably,  here,  some 
comforting  promise  of  the  future  perfection 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.i  And  the  powers 
of  the  world  to  come  (of  the  coming, 
or  future  age,  see  2:4;  Gal.  3  :  5).  Mir- 
aculous gifts  and  endowments  mainly,  which 
were  a  common  characteristic  of  the  early 
church,  and  which,  in  Old  Testament  times, 
were  looked,  forward  to  as  destined  to  mark 
the  coming  age  {aiiiv  nfk\<av),  the  age  of  the 
Messiah.  (Acts?:  n, aeq.)  From  the  Old  Testa- 
ment point  of  view  this  coming  age  was  al- 
ready present.     It  had  been  ushered  in  with 


'The  genitive  Smptat,  of  a  gift  participated  in;  the  accusative  p^Mt^i  of  a  word  or  utterance,  of  whatever 
nature  received  in  its  totality. 


76                                                   HEBREWS.                                        [Ch.  YI. 

(i  If  they  sliall  fall  away,  to  renew  tbein  again  unto 
repentance;  seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves  the  Sou 
of  Uod  afresh,  and  put  lUm  to  an  opeu  shame. 

6  powers  of  the  age  to  coiue,  and  then  fell  away,  it  is 
impossible  to  reuew  theui  again  unto  repentance ; 
1  seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves  the  Son  of  t^od 

1  Or,  the  while. 

the  Mes.siali,  and  those  extraordinary  spiritual 
effusions  which  followed  his  ascension.  With 
his  departure,  the  "coining  age"  divided 
itself,  and  its  fullest  powers  were  reserved  for 
the  second  coming,  and  the  kingdom  then  to 
be  consummated.  Of  these  more  wondrous 
manifestations,  the  miraculous  powers  now 
exhibited  were  but  types  and  presages.  Both 
of  the  glorious  present,  however,  and  as  fore- 
shado wings  of  the  still  more  glorious  future, 
these  Hebrew  Christians  had  largely  partaken. 
The  above  characteristics  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate Christians;  and  as  the  representation  de- 
rives all  its  force  from  its  applicability  to  the 
persons  addressed,  and  as  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  uniformly  regards  these  as  having  been 
believers,  we  seem  bound  to  suppose  that  such 
is  the  ciiaracter  here  described.  Whether 
such  persons-  actually  can  or  do  fall  away,  is 
another  question. 

6,  If  they  shall  fail  away— (anrf  have 
fallen  away.,  with  emphasis  on  and),  aposta- 
tized, "departed  from  the  living  God" — to 
renew  them  again  unto  repentance.  Their 
recovery  is  hopeless;  they  have  exhausted  the 
resources  of  divine  mercy.  Since  they  cru- 
cify (temporal  and  causal  participle,  ai'a<rTavp- 
ovmat,  while  and  because  of  crucifying)  to  (or, 
for)  themselves  the  Son  of  Ciod  afresh — 
the  Christ  who  has  been  crucified  by  others, 
tiiey,  after  having  accepted  and  believed  in, 
vecrucify  for  themselves.  The  present  parti- 
ciple {iiViunavpoivTai)  following  the  previous 
aorist  participle,  iinplies  that  their  act  of 
falling  away,  conceived  as  one  and  single,  is 


connected  with  an  abiding  recrucifixion  of 
the  Lord.  This  contiimousncss  of  their  act 
enhances  its  wickedness.  The  verb  translated 
"tocrucify  again"  (avaaravpoiv),  would,  in  tlie 
classics,  simply  mean  '  to  fasten  up  to  a  cross,' 
but  the  prejjosition  (kva)  is  exceedingly  flexible 
and  various  in  signification,  denoting,  in  the 
same  word,  sometimes  uji,  sometimes  back  or 
over  ago.iti,  and  sometimes  coiribining  both. 
Here  interpreters,  from  the  Greek  expositors 
down,  have  given  to  it  the  force  of  oi;er'  again. 
By  again  turning  their  backs  on  Christ,  these 
apostates  sanction,  and,  as  it  were,  renew  his 
crucifixion  ;  thej'  lend  their  voices  to  swell  the 
shout  of  "crucify  him."  They  crucify  him 
for  themselves  in  that  they  make  the  national 
act  their  own,  and  declare  their  individual 
purpose  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  him,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  hold  him  up  to  the  scoffing 
and  derision  of  others ;  expose  him  to  public 
shame  and  reproach  (n-apo«civ/iaTi^€tf ;  to  make 
a  2'>ublic  example  of).^  This  language  would 
be  especially  forcible  addressed  to  Jews  whose 
countrymen  had  crucified  the  Messiah,  and 
while  yet  the  echo  of  that  great  shout  of 
national  rejection  was  still  lingering  on  the 
ear,  in  which,  in  fact,  some  of  those  addressed 
may  not  improbably  have  participated.  On 
these  persons,  therefore,  the  gospel  has  tried 
its  utmost  strength  and  failed.  The  only 
Being  whose  blood  could  redeem  and  sanctify 
thein,  they  have  discarded.  There  remains 
for  them  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin ;  and  as 
matter  both  of  natural  necessity  and  judicial 
retribution,  their  recovery  is  impossible.^    In 


1  See  Matt.  1  :  19,  Joseph  .  .  .  not  willing  to  make  a 
public  example  (n-apaSeiY/iaTtVai,  or,  omitting  irapa, 
Bfiyii-ariaai)  of  Mary. 

2  The  sin  here  described  as  sealing  the  ruin  of  its 
agents,  is  by  many  identified  with  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  described  in  the  gosi)el.  To  me  they  seem, 
though  equally  fatal,  widely  different.  Thai  is  the  sin 
of  open  spurncrs  of  Christianity ;  of  men  who  vent 
their  hate  and  malice  in  words  and  acts  of  libel  and 
outrage  against  the  workings  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  who, 
though  they  have  had  great  external  enlightenment, 
have  made  no  pretence  of  discipleship.  Thix  is  the  sin 
of  professed  (and  real)  friends,  who  have  been  inwardly, 
as  well  as  outwardly,  enlightened,  but  slowly,  and  half 
unconsciously,  under  the  deceitfuliiess  of  sin,  have 
lapsed  gradually  into  final,  and  utter  apostasy.    The 


former  sin  is  committed  more  directly  against  the 
Spirit;  the  latter  against  the  Son.  The  former  is  un- 
pardonable, as  being  a  wanton  and  spiteful  rejection  of 
him  who  applies  the  cleansing  blood  of  Christ;  tlie 
latter  as  exhausting  and  proving  inefhcient  the  re- 
sources of  that  blood  itself.  The  one  provokes  and 
drives  away  the  Spirit,  and  i)revents  him  from  ajjplying 
his  regenerating  power  to  the  soul ;  the  other  quenches 
his  regenerating  influences  in  the  soul  itself.  In  my 
opinion,  there  is  another  wide  difference  between  them. 
The  one  can  bo,  and  is,  committed  ;  the  other  is,  theo- 
retically, but  not  j)ractically,  possible.  The  present 
])assage  describes,  I  think,  a  condition  subjectively  pos- 
sible, and,  therefore,  needing  to  be  held  up  in  earnest 
warning  to  the  believer,  while  objectively,  and  in  the 
absolute  purpose  of  God,  it  never  actually  occurs. 


Ch.  VI.] 


HEBREWS. 


77 


relation  to  this  sin,  I  would  remark:  (1)  That 
this,  and  several  like  passages  in  the  Epistle, 
are  substantially  but  expansions  (couched  in 
the  peculiar  style  of  our  author)  of  similar 
exhortations  and  warnings  occurring  elsewhere 
in  the  epistles,  emphasized,  in  this  case,  by  the 
extremely  perilous  condition  of  the  persons 
addressed.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  fur- 
nishes, perhaps,  the  nearest  parallel  to  their 
condition,  though  the  accessories  and  handling 
are  widely  different.  But  the  injunctions, 
"Quench  not  the  Spirit,"  "Grieve  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God,"  etc.,  and  especially  the 
Saviour's  language  in  John  15  :  7,  seq.,  "Abide 
in  me,"  etc.,  "If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he 
is  cast  forth,"  etc.,  seem  substantially  of  the 
same  nature.  Whatever  inferences  we  draw 
from  the  one  set  of  passages  can  be  extended 
to  the  other.  (2)  I  think  it  is  not  affirmed  in 
any  of  these  passages,  that  persons  of  the  class 
here  described  have  actually  fallen  away.  The 
readers  are  bidden  to  beware  of  an  evil  heart 
of  unbelief  in  departing  from  the  living  God, 
warned  of  the  helpless  condition  of  apostates, 
and  reminded  of  the  intrinsically  necessary 
consequences  of  such  apostasy — granting  it  to 
occur;  but  I  am  not  aware  that  the  case  is 
put  otherwise  than  hypothetically.  Why, 
then,  put  hypothetically  a  case  which  is  never 
to  be  realized?  I  answer:  (3)  The  Scriptures 
everywhere  treat  men  as  free,  moral  agents, 
who  hold  their  destinies  in  their  own  keeping. 
The  sinner  is  commanded  to  repent,  as  if 
repentance  lay  within  his  independent  voli- 
tion ;  the  Christian  is  urged  to  fidelity,  perse- 
verance, and  growth  in  holiness,  as  if  all  were 
not  ultimately  the  product  of  divine  grace 
working  within  him.  They  are  dealt  with,  not 
accordiag  to  the  objective  facts,  but  their  sub- 
jective, conscious  obligations;  and  this  mode 
of  dealing  with  them  is  doubtless  one  of  the 
divine  means  of  accomplishing  its  sovereign 
purposes.  As  free,  moral  agents,  they  may, 
and  ought  to,  repent;  but  through  these  ex- 
hortations God  brings  them  to  repentance. 
As  conscious,  free  agents,  Christians  may 
either  stand  or  fall ;  and  if  in  his  gracious 
economy  he  has  ordained  that  they  shall  7wt 
fall,  these  warnings  may  be  among  his  means 
of  accomplishing  his  ordination.  This  with 
all  the  more  propriety,  as  they  know  not  as 
yet  with  absolute  certainty  to  which  category 
thej'  belong.     To  the  Eye  that  sees  the  future 


as  the  present,  and  the  hidden  as  the  revealed, 
their  character  and  destiny  are  already  de- 
cided; but  to  them  in  whom  dwell  conflicting 
elements  of  character,  who  are  begirt  by 
temptations,  and  to  whom  the  sole  decisive 
test  is  perseverance  to  the  end,  these  exhorta- 
tions are  always  timely.  (4)  The  writer  may 
thus  include  under  the  same  general  descrip- 
tion, two  widely  different  classes — those  who 
are  actually  regenerated,  and  those  who,  not 
really  so,  have  gone  through  an  apparent 
Christian  experience.  The  two  will  be  subject 
to  substantially  the  same  treatment,  and  only 
in  the  sequel  will  exhibit  their  real  intrinsic 
diversity.  The  stony  ground  plants  spring 
up  more  speedily  and  luxuriantly  than  the 
offspring  of  the  good  soil;  but  the  rising  of 
the  sun,  which  warms  and  fosters  the  one,* 
scorches  and  withers  the  other.  Thus  the 
professed  disciples  may  be  described  partly  as 
they  are,  partly  as  they  appear.  Those  who 
fall  away  were,  in  fact,  never  genuine  disci- 
ples; those  who  were  genuine  disciples  will 
never  fall  away.  (5)  The  question  of  the 
possible  aposta.sy  of  believers  it  is  not  my 
province  to  discuss.  I  can  only  just  say  that 
it  seems  to  me  to  lie  within  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  those  whom  the  Son  of  God  has  ran- 
somed with  his  blood  and  regenerated  with 
his  Spirit,  cannot  be  allowed  afterward  com- 
pletely to  apostatize.  It  seems  to  me  to  be 
allowing  such  a  triumph  to  Satan  as  is  insup- 
posable,  and  directly  to  antagonize  the  words 
of  Christ,  "My  sheep  hear  my  voice;  and  I 
give  unto  them  eternal  life,  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them 
out  of  my  hand."  So  the  triumphant  lan- 
guage of  Paul  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans; and  such  seems  to  me  to  be  the  pre- 
vailing tone  of  the  New  Testament.  (6)  But 
finally,  it  is  clear  that  if  the  Christian's  apos- 
tasy is  possible,  he  can  apostatize  but  once. 
When  the  record  which  God  has  written  on 
his  heart  is  effaced,  it  cannot  be  inscribed 
there  again.  He  will  have  no  second  oppor- 
tunity to  offer  that  outrage  to  an  atoning 
Redeemer  and  a  regenerating  Spirit.  This, 
and  other  like  passages,  put  an  extinguisher  on 
the  hopes  of  him  who  has  succeeded  in  wrest- 
ing himself  out  of  the  arms  of  infinite  love, 
and  surrenders  himself  again  to  the  mastery 
of  sin,  is  henceforth  its  slave  and  victim  to 
the  end. 


78 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


7  For   tlie  earth   wliich   drinketh   in   the   rain  that  |    7  afresh,  and  put  hiiu  to  an  open   shanje.     For  the 


coiuelli  oft,  upon  it,  and  l)riiigeth  fortli  herbs  meet  for 
theui  by  whom  it  is  dressed,  receiveth  blessing  from 
G.  d: 

8  But  that  wliicli  beareth  thorns  and  briers  is  re- 
jected, and  (6-  nigli  unto  cursing;  whose  end  u  to  be 
burned. 


land  wliicli  hatli  drunk  the  rain  that  cometh  oft 
ujmn  it,  and  bringetli  fortli  herbs  meet  for  them  for 
whose  sake  it  is  also  tilled,  receiveth  Ijlessing  from 
8  God:  but  if  it  beareth  thorns  and  thistles,  it  is 
rejected  and  nigh  unto  a  curse;  wliose  end  is  to  be 
burned. 


7,  8.  Simile  illu.«Li-:iting  and  enforcing  the 
above  warning,  and  pointing  the  condition, 
"provided  God  permit.'' 

7.  For  tlie  earth,  etc. — For  land  that  hath 
drunk  the  rain  that  cometh  oftentimes  u2'>on  it. 
This  is  the  subject  to  which  both  the  following 
predicates,  bring  forth  and  bear  (tiktovcto  and 
tK<<.€>oi;<ra),  equally  refer.  It  describes  alike 
that  which  in  its  further  culture  rec.eives  the 
blessing  of  God,  and  that  which  has  his  curse. 
It  is  the  condition  of  the  dealing  with  both 
these  classes  of  land  that  they  should  have 
drunk  the  rains,  and  had  the  culture  of  the 
husbandman,  and  shared  equally  the  original 
means  of  productiveness.  The  term  'drink- 
eth,' therefore,  is  not  to  be  pressed  as  if  it  de- 
notes a  cordial,  voluntary  drinking,  a  glad 
reception  of  the  rain  in  the  one  case  as  against 
a  more. passive  reception  of  it  in  the  other. 
The  terms  'drinketh,'  'bringeth  forth,'  're- 
ceiveth blessing,'  'is  rejected,'  all  transfer  to 
lifeless  nature  the  life  and  accountability 
which  belong  to  the  subjects  that  the  figure 
illustrates.  The  image  is  pregnant  with  vi- 
tality. And  bringeth  forth,  etc — giving 
birth  to,  engendering  herbage  suitable  for  them 
for  whose  sake  (not,  by  whom,)  it  is  tilled. 
Receiveth  {partaketh  of]  blessing  from 
God.  Those  for  whose  sake  the  field  is  culti- 
vated are  not  necessarily  the  workmen,  but 
the  owners  (perhaps  both)  ;  as  in  the  case  of 
Christians,  the  spiritual  soil  is  tilled  indeed  by 
men,  hut  for  the  Supreme  Owner,  God.  The 
land  which,  having  thus  drunk  the  fertilizing 
rains,  repays  them  with  apj)roj)riate  vegeta- 
tion, receives  the  divine  blessing.  God  smiles 
upon  it,  and  permits  and  prospers  its  further 
culture.  He  brings  the  springing  corn  to  ma- 
turity, and  rewards  the  liberal  vegetation  of 
one  j'ear  by  a  still  richer  harvest  in  another. 
The  field  is  endowed  with  life,  and  receives  in 
augmented  beauty  and  verdure  the  reward  of 
its  fidelity.  So  the  writer  keeps  steadily  in 
view  his  emphatic  '  provided  God  permit.' 
Its  blessing  is  from  God. 

8.  But  that  which  beareth,  etc. — But 
when  producing  thorns  and  thistles,  it  is  rep- 
robate and  is  near  to  a  curse,  whose  conszan- 


mation  is  to  be  burned.  '  Bearing'  ('EK<frepouo-o), 
bringing  forth,  produci)ig,  though  not  a  word 
of  disparagement,  is  a  term  of  less  dignity  (and 
intentionally  chosen  as  such)  than  'bringeth 
forth'  (T«Tovo-a,  giving  birth  to)  of  the  preced- 
ing clause.  'Thorns  and  thistles'  are  already 
the  product  of  a  curse  (Gen.  3:t8),  but  here  ap- 
pear as  its  occasion.  The  writer  keeps  out  of 
sight  any  previous  inherent  difference  in  the 
quality  of  the  land  to  make  his.  figure  more 
perfect.  Let  it  receive  the  beneficent  rains 
and  yield  a  suitable  return,  and  it  is  blessed; 
let  it  produce  thorns  and  thistles,  and  it  is 
cursed.  It  is  reprobate  (a^dxtMos),  n^iproved, 
not  bearing  trial ;  hence,  vjoi'thless,  discarded, 
a  term  again  transferred  from  rational  to 
inanimate  nature,  and  chosen  as  specifically 
appropriate.  As  the  nations  (Rom.  i-.is)  disap- 
2)roved  (aireSoxiVao-ov)  to  hold  God  in  recogni- 
tion, God  gave  them  over  to  an  ujiproved, 
worthless,  reprobate  (aSoKiixov)  mind.  Esau 
having  discarded  his  birthright  (12:17),  when 
he  would  recover  it  was  rep7-ohated,  and  no 
divine  blessing  smiled  on  his  endeavor.  So 
the  land  that  has  made  so  ungracious  and  per- 
verse a  return  for  the  heavenly  boon  is  dis- 
carded, reprobrated  as  worthless.  The  ap- 
pended condition,  "  if  God  permit,"  rings  in 
the  author's  ears.  '  Near  tc  a  curse '  is  an  ex- 
pression chosen  in  tenderness,  that  the  author 
may  not  extinguish  hope  in  the  readers.  He 
would  alarm,  but  not  drive  them  to  despair. 
He  would  show  their  case  to  be  critical,  but 
not  hopeless.  Even  while  producing  thorns 
and  thistles,  the  field  is  not  utterly  aban- 
doned; the  curse  delays;  the  consuming  fire 
does  not  yet  descend,  and  the  doubt  implied 
in  the  'if  God  permit'  may  have  a  happj'  so- 
lution. If  tlie  word  translated  'end'  in  the 
Common  Version  (tcAos)  be  rendered  consum- 
mation, the  'whose'  (17s),  of  which,  refers  to 
'curse' ;  if  'end,'  it  may  equally  well  refer  to 
land  (yijs).  In  the  words,  "whose  end  is  for 
burning,"  Delitzsch  suggests  a  possible  pro- 
phetic anticipation  of  the  approaching  doom 
of  Jerusalem.  The  Jewish  vineyard  was  cer- 
tainly now  near  to  its  burning.  The  spiritual 
eye  must  have  discovered  lurid  clouds  hang- 


Ch.  VI.] 


HEBREWS. 


79 


■  9  But,  beloved,  we  are  persuaded  better  things  of 
you,  aud  thiugs  that  accoiupaiiy  salvatiou,  though  we 
thus  si)euk. 

10  Kor  God  is  not  unrighteous  to  forget  your  work 
aud  labour  of  love,  which  ye  have  shewed  toward  his 
iianie,  iu  that  ye  have  uiiuistered  to  the  saints,  and  do 
minister. 

11  And  we  desire  that  every  one  of  you  do  shew  the 
same  diligence  to  the  lull  assurance  ol  hope  unto  the 
end: 


9      But,  lieloved,  we  are  persuaded  better  things  uf 
you,  and  things  that  '  accompany  salvation,  llmtigh 

10  we  thus  speak  :  for  (lod  is  not  unrighteous  to  iorget 
your  work  aud  the  love  which  ye  shewed  toward 
his  name,  in  that  ye  ministered  unto  the  saints,  and 

11  still  do  minister.  And  we  desire  that  each  one  of 
you  may  shew  the  same  diligence  uuio  the  ^^  fulness 


I  Or,  belong  to -i.  Or,  full 


ing  heavy  on  the  horizon.  The  general  ref- 
erence of  the  figure  is  probably  to  a  storm  of 
fire  and  brimstone  from  iieaven,  like  that 
which  descended  on  the  cities  of  the  plain  and 
doomed  them  to  perpetual  sterility. 

(c)  The  brighter  aspects  of  the  case.  The 
author  would  encourage  as  well  as  alarm. 
He  declares  to  his  readers  his  confidence  that 
under  God's  covenant  faithfulness  better 
things  await  them  ;  cites  his  oath  to  Abraham 
as  a  sure  grfiund  of  confidence,  and,  remind- 
ing them  of  their  hope  which  enters  the  hea- 
venly sanctuary,  and  rests  on  the  heavenly 
High  Priest,  thus  brings  his  subject  gracefully- 
round  to  the  starting  point  in  the  heavenly 
high  priesthood  of  Jesus,  from  which  he'had 
digressed.     (9-20. ) 

9.  But,  beloved,  we  are  persuaded — not 
necessarily  implying  doubt  or  reluctant  be- 
lief, but  a  belief  which  springs  from  evidence. 

(Rom.  8:38;  2  Tim.  I  :  5.)         Of    {C0nce7'ning)     yOU. 

'Beloved'  is  a  term  of  endearment,  applied 
by  our  author  only  here,  and  here,  doubtless, 
in  view  of  the  fearful  rebuke  just  adminis- 
tered. Better  things  of  you — better  to  the 
extent  of  being  connected  with  salvation;  bet- 
ter intrinsically;  better  in  their  final  issue. 
Though  we  thus  speak— doubtingly  and 
alarmingly.  He  has  spoken  with  fidelity  and 
plainness;  he  has  inflicted  "the  wounds  of  a 
friend,"  putting  the  worst  aspects  of  their  case 
in  the  hope  of  preventing  his  foreboding  from 
being  realized. 

10.  For  God  is  not  unrighteous  to  for> 
get  your  work.  As  to  their  work,  see  10  :  32; 
their  endurance  of  aflfliction  and  persecution, 
and  active  and  close  sympathy  with  the  perse- 
cuted. The  author  finds  grounds  for  the  as- 
surance that  God  will  not  permit  their  final 
apostasy  in  the  fact  that  his  very  justice  is  en- 
listed in  their  behalf,  and  in  some  sort  pledged 
to  reward  their  former  fidelity  and  devotion. 
The  Christian's  best  works,  of  course,  give 
him  no  claim  to  salvation.     But  God  suflfers  no 


intrinsically  good  act  to  go  unrewarded;  and 
although  it  was  at  his  pleasure  originally  to 
institute  or  not  his  gracious  economy,  yet  it 
being  once  instituted,  his  veracity  and  justice 
guarantee  the  fulfillment  of  his  promises  both 
to  the  Redeemer  and  his  people.  He  encour- 
ages, therefore,  his  Hebrew  brethren  by  a  ref- 
erence to  their  former,  and  indeed  still  contin- 
ued, acts  of  Christian  service  (for  external 
may  not  have  kept  pace  with  internal  spiritual 
decline),  and  finds  in  God's  grdcious  justice  a 
guarantee  of  their  ultimate  salvation.  And 
the  love  which  ye  have  shewed  toward 
his  name  —  that  is,  toward  himself;  the 
'  name,'  as  outward  symbol  of  the  person,  often 
stands  forcibly  for  the  person.  The  '  work ' 
stands  collectively  for  works;  it  takes  their 
Christian  activity  as  a  whole.  It  is  completed 
by  '  love,'  ( '  labor,'  Koitov,  is  wanting  in  the  best 
MSS.),  without  which  all  works,  even  acts 
of  charity,  as  giving  one's  goods  to  feed  the 
poor  and  one's  body  to  be  burned,  are  really 
worthless.  The  work  and  the  love  had  here 
gone  together.  In  that  ye  have  ministered 
to  the  saints,  and  do  minister  (are  tninis- 
tering).  They  have  attested,  and  are  still  at- 
testing, their  allegiance  to  Christ  by  minister- 
ing to  his  people;  primarily,  perhaps,  though 
by  no  means  exclusively,  in  charitable  contri- 
butions. No  inference  can  probabl v  be  drawn 
from  this  passage  as  to  the  residence  of  these 
Christians,  whether  in  or  out  of  Palestine. 
Whether  their  contributions  were  to  their 
needy  fellow-Christians  in  any  part  of  Pales- 
tine (as  Jerusalem),  or  among  themselves  or 
elsewhere,  the  reference  is  quite  too  vague  to 
warrant  any  conclusion.  Jewish  Christians 
in  Rome  might  very  well  have  been  objects  of 
charity. 

11.  Renewed  exhortation.  And  we  de- 
sire that  every  one  of  you  do  show  (feel) 
the  same  diligence,  zeal;  not  the  .•^^ame 
with  one  another,  but  the  same  which  ye  have 
shown   in  deeds   of   love   and  charity.      To 


80 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


12  That  ye  be  not  slothful,  but  followers  of  them  who 
through  faith  and  patience  iuherit  the  promises. 

13  For  when  God  made  promise  to  Abraham,  because 
he  could  swear  by  no  greater,  he  sware  by  himself. 

14  .Saying,  Surely  blessing  [  will  bless  thee,  and  mul- 
tiplying I  will  multiply  thee. 


12  of  hope  even  to  the  end:  that  ye  be  not  sluggish, 
but  imitators  of  them  who  through  faith  and  pa- 
tience inherit  the  promises. 

13  For  when  God  made  promise  to  Abraham,  since 
he  could  swear  by  none  greater,  he  sware  by  him- 

14  self,  sayiug,  Surely  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and 


(in  respect  to)  the  full   assurance  of  hope 

{nKripo<j>opiav),  completion,  perfection  (Bleek,  De 
Wette),  oT,fuLL  and  assured  confidence  {T)ki\- 
il;csch  and  others),  more  in  accordance  with 
the  usual   New  Testament  sense  of  the  word. 

(10:22;   1  Thes3.  1  :5;   Col.  2:2.)        UutO     the     CUd — 

whether  'shew  unto  the  end'  or  hope  'unto 
the  end'  seems  doubtful,  and  the  difference  in 
meaning  is  not  important.  In  either  case  'the 
beginning  of  their  confidence,'  their  original 
hope  and  fervor,  are  to  be  maintained  to  the 
final  issue.  This  is  conceived  not  so  much  as 
the  close  of  life  as  of  the  waiting  period  before 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  which  was  ex- 
pected to  break  upon  them  soon,  and  did  so 
typically  in  the  overthrow  of  their  city  and 
nation.  Perhaps  the  'end'  is  here  conceived 
as  simply  the  close  of  the  probationary  period, 
in  whatever  way  terminated. 

13.  That  ye  be  not  {may  not  become, 
prove)  slothful — sluggish  (vuiepoC),  dull,  inert 
of  spiritual  understanding  and  sensibility. 
They  have  been  already  said  (o:  n)  to  have  be- 
come sluggish;  but  such  epithets  are  of  course 
always  relative,  and  besides  the  Greek  verb 
(ycvjifffl*)  may  signify  not  only  to  become  what 
they  are  not,  but  to  prove  themselves  what 
they  are  (iyivovro  avSpeloi,  they  proved  themselves 
brave).  But  followers  {imitators)  of  them 
who  through  faith  and  patience  (tiaKpo- 
6viJ.ia,  long  suffering) — the  very  qualities  which 
these  Hebrew  Cliristians  are  called  on  specially 
to  display;  the  faith  which  takes  cognizance 
of  the  future  (":'),  fi'id  the  long  suffering 
which,  nerved  by  faith,  withstands  trials  and 
temptations.  Inherit  the  promises — not  the 
word  of  the  promise,  but  its  substance,  its  reali- 
zation. The  present  participle  (KkT)pofoii.ovvruiv) 
shows  that  not  merely  the  patriarchs  and  the 
ancient  worthies  are  meant,  but  the  whole  line 
of  the  faithful  down  to  their  own  day.  Not 
until  the  next  verse  is  the  general  thought 
specialized  to  Abraham.  At  11  :  13  we  are 
told  that  these  ancient  worthies  died  without 
receiving  the  promises — that  is,  their  fulfill- 
ment. How,  then,  can  they  be  here  declared 
to  have  inherited  them?  We  reply:  The 
former  declaration  is  confined  within  the  limits 
of  their  earthly  life;  the  latter  takes  jn  the 


whole  compass  ot  their  existence.  Looking 
simply  at  his  earthly  career,  Abraham  ob- 
tained the  promise  indeed,  but  not  its  fulfill- 
ment ;  looking  at  his  whole  career,  he  obtained 
both.  With  God,  who  cannot  lie,  making  the 
promise  is  equivalent  to  fulfilling  it,  and  its 
full  import  will  be  realized  in  its  own  due 
time.  We  may  further  add  that  the  coming 
of  Christ  brings  at  once  the  believers  of  all 
times,  dead  and  living,  into  a  richer  exjjerience 
of  the  promised  good.  Whatever  their  previ- 
ous condition,  they  now  inherit  the  promises, 
and  that  through  the  faith  and  patience  of 
their  earthly  life.  Between  'promise'  and 
'promises'  (singular  and  plural)  there  is  no 
marked  distinction. 

13.  Exainple  of  Abraham.  For  introduces 
an  illustration,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  prom- 
ise and  of  the  guarantee  in  God's  faithfulness 
for  its  fulfillment,  and,  on  the  other,  of  the 
faith  and  long  suffering  which  secured  its  real- 
ization. When  God  made  promise  to 
Abraham — 'Abraham'  (in  the  Greek)  em- 
phatic in  position  (for  to  Abraham,  in  making 
proTnise,  God,  etc.).  Some  (as  De  Wette, 
Liinemann)  renderthe  participle  "after  prom- 
ising," thus  making  the  promise  antecedent  to 
the  oath,  and  referring  the  promise  to  Gen. 
17  :  4,  seq.,  and  the  oath  to  22  :  16,  17;  but  the 
coupling  of  the  oath  with  the  promise  is  spe- 
cially important  to  the  writer,  and  it  is  much 
better  to  refer  the  whole  to  Gen.  22  :  16,  17, 
where  both  appear  in  connection.  The  aorist 
participle  will  admit  equally  well  of  either 
rendering,  vjhen  he  promised  (on  promising), 
or,  after  promising.  I  adopt  unhesitatingly 
(with  Delitzsch)  the  former  construction, 
which  makes  the  promise  and  oath  come  to- 
gether, the  promise  preceding  simply  in  h)gi- 
cal  conception.  Because  [since)  he  could 
swear  by  no  greater,  he  sware  by  him> 
self.  On  the  part  of  God,  Abraham's  ground 
of  faith  was  of  the  most  decisive  conceivable 
character.  He  left  nothing  undone  that  could 
assure  to  Abraham  the  sincerity  and  absolute 
reliableness  of  his  promise,  and  added  to  it 
the  inviolable  sanctity  of  the  oath. 

14.  Saying,  Surely  (^  M'i»'),  a  formula  fa- 
miliar to  classic  Greek,  as  accompanying  and 


Ch.  VI.] 


HEBREWS. 


81 


15  And  so,  after  he  had  patiently  endured,  he  obtained    15  multiplying  I  will  multiply  thee.    And  thus,  having 


the  promise. 

16  For  men  verily  swear  by  the  greater:  and  an  oath 
for  confirmation  ix  to  them  an  end  of  all  strife. 

17  Wherfiii  (iod,  willing  more  abundantly  to  shew 
unto  the  heirs  of  promise  tfie  immutability  of  his  coun- 
sel, confirmed  it  by  an  oath : 


16  patiently  endured,  be  obtained  the  promise.  For 
men  swear  by  the  greater:  and  in  every  disjiute  of 

17  theirs  the  oath  is  final  for  confirmation.  Wherein 
God,  being  minded  to  shew  more  abundantly  unto 
the  lieirs  of  the  promise  the  immutability  of  his 


often  taking  the  place  of  an  adjuration,  and 
always  having  the  power  of  an  oath;  so  the 
Septuagint.*  The  rest  of  the  passage  has  the 
Hebrew  emphasis  blessing  I  will  bJess  thee 
—equivalent  to,  I  will  surely  bless  thee,  and 
multiplying  I  will  multiply  thee— equiva- 
lent to,  I  will  surel}'  multii)ly  thee.  The 
citation  varies  from  the  Septuagint  22  :  17,  in 
substituting  thee  (<ri)  for  thy  seed  (to  wipiia.  aov) 
in  the  second  clause. 

15.  And  so,  thus — that  is,  not  "in  this 
way,"  but  (by  a  familiar  use  of  the  Greek 
ouTut)  'under  these  conditions'  of  God's  prom- 
ise given  and  confirmed:  the  particle  'thus' 
belonging  exclusively  neither  to  the  parti- 
ciple "patiently  enduring"  ((uia(cpo9vjoi^aas)  nor 
to  the  verb  "obtained"  (inirvxfv),  but  to  both 
as  constituting  one  complex  idea.  After  he 
had  patiently  endured  {patiently  enduring, 
Rom.  4:  18-29;  or,  by  patiently  enduring)  he 
obtained  the  promise — that  is,  its  fulfill- 
ment. Not,  indeed,  in  his  earthly  life  time, 
but  as  fast  and  as  soDn  as  the  promise  in  its 
various  elements,  the  multiplication  of  his 
seed,  and  the  Messianic  salvation  through  his 
seed,  could  be  accomplished. 

16.  For  men,  indeed  (/uieV,  indeed,  to  be  sure, 
as  contrasted  with  God  ;  never  as  the  Common 
Version,  verily.  But  the  particle  is  wanting 
in  the  Sinaitic  and  some  other  MSS.  If  the 
particle  is  genuine  it  implies  the  latent  thought 
that  than  God  there  is  no  greater.)  Swear 
by  the  greater  (toO  /iei^oi/o?) — either  neuter, 
that  which  is  greater,  or  better,  masculine, 
"the  greater  Being,"  him  by  whom  all  men 
swear;  namely,  God.  The  force  of  the  oath 
consists  not  in  its  appealing  to  any  object 
greater  than  ourselves,  but  to  the  one  Being 
who  can  take  cognizance  of  our  treatment  of 
the  oath  Ti:e  la^t  clause  may  be  rendered: 
And  of  gninsnying  the  oath  to  them  is  a  finality 
(a  limit)  for  confirmation.  'Gainsaying'  (here 
the  object  in  the  writer's  mind  being  tlie 
divine  promise)  seems  a   better  rendering  of 


the  Greek  (ii'TiAoi'ia),  than  strife,  dispute, 
which  the  word  will  equally  well  bear,  and 
as  in  the  Revised  Version.  'Oath'  is  em- 
phatic in  position.  '  For  confirmation  '  belongs 
to  'end,'  'limit,'  and  not  to  'oath.' 

17.  Wherein  {in  which) ;  namely,  matter, 
or  state  of  the  case  as  to  the  force  of  the  oath. 
God  willing  {v>ishing)  more  abundantly 
— in  a  higher  degree  than  by  his  single 
word,  or,  as  is  possible,  very  abundantly — 
to  shew  unto  the  heirs  of  promise,  not 
merely  the  Old  Testament  saints  (Tholuck), 
nor  simply  Christians  as  such  (Liinemann), 
but  the  spiritual  descendants  of  Abraham, 
the  spiritual  Israel  who  inherit  all  the  spiritual 
blessings  couched  under  the  earthly  promise. 
In  the  promise  to  Abrahatii  were  potentially 
contained  all  the  blessings  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant, whence  believers  become  'the  heirs  of 
promise.'  An  emphasis,  however,  rests  on 
'heirs,'  as  if  the  author  would  not  only  sig- 
nalize God's  desire  to  assure  the  blessing  to 
Abraham,  the  original  receiver  of  the  promise, 
but  to  his  children  its  inheritors,  by  a  like 
oath.  The  author's  circle  of  vision  hsis  ex- 
panded. He  embraces  in  thought  the  present 
time,  and  the  more  strictly  spiritual  import  of 
the  oath  to  Abraham.  The  immutability 
of  his  counsel,  etc.,  interposed  7vith  an  oath; 
'interposed,'  mediated  (/neo-iTeOw),  came  as 
mediator  between  himself  and  the  objects  of 
the  promise.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
Delitzsch  (with  some  others)  is  not  right  in 
supposing  that  in  this  renewed  reference  to 
the  oath  at  ver.  IT,  the  author  has  not  in 
mind  another  oath  in  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment heirs  of  the  promise  are  still  more  deeply 
interested,  that,  namely,  which  confirms  to 
Christ  yet  more  solemnly  the  ro3'al  and  per- 
petual priesthood  of  Melchisedec.  The  very 
formal  r2sumption  of  the  subject:  the  words 
"  wishing  more  abundantly  to  confirm  "  (n-epKr- 
a&Tfpov)  which  in  this  case  would  refer  to  the 
second  oath — more  abundantly  than  by  the 


1  [The  reading  <i  ^^v  is  preferred  by  the  leading  edi-  I  B  D  *E  P.  The  meaning,  however,  is  not  affected  by 
tors,  l.,acbmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  this  change.  See  Thayer's  Lex.  of  the  New  Testament 
Hort,  and  is  supported  by  the  important  MSS.  X  A    S.  V.— A.  H.] 

F 


82 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VI. 


18  That  by  two  Immutable  things,  in  which  it  ivas  |  18  counsel  'interposed  with  an  oath:  that  by  two  iui- 


irapossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have  a  strong  con- 
solation, who  have  fled  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  upuu  the 
hope  set  before  us: 

19  Which  hope  we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul,  both 
sure  and  steadfast,  and  which  entereth  into  that  within 
the  vail ; 


mutable  things,  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God  to 
lie,  we  may  have  a  strong  encouragement,  who  hare 
fled  for  reluge  to  lay  hold  of  the  hope  set  before  us; 
19  which  we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul,  a  hope  both 
sure  and  stedfast  and  entering  into  that  wnich  is 


1  Gr.  mediated. 


former:  'the  immutability  of  his  counsel,' 
which  might  be  suggested  by  "  the  Lord  swore 
and  will  not  repent"  ;  and  finally,  the  close 
connection  in  which  all  this  stands  with  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,  in  which  the  believer's 
hope  is  to  enter  and  fasten  on  the  high  priest- 
hood of  Christ,  toward  which  the  author  is 
now  rapidly  hastening  forward,  and  which 
already  he  has  full  in  view — all  might  favor 
the  idea  that  he  has  now  rather  in  mind  the 
oath  to  Christ  than  the  oath  to  Abraham. 
That  special  topic  and  example  he  seems 
really  to  have  left  behind  him.  His  own 
times  and  his  Htbrew  brethren  are  under  his 
eye.  To  them  the  oath  that  God  would  bless 
Abraham  and  multiply  his  seed,  though 
always  of  interest,  is  now  of  less  immediate 
concern  than  that  promise  and  oath  of  God  to 
Christ,  which  form  the  very  core  and  centre 
of  the  New  Covenant.  And  although  there 
is  here  no  express  mention  of  this  oath,  yet  it 
might  be  a  part  of  the  writer's  art  to  leave  it 
to  suggest  itself,  as  it  so  naturally  would  to 
his  readers,  and  reserve  its  express  mention  to 
a  little  later  on.  (7:20-22.)  As,  however,  the 
author  has  not  here  made  express  reference  to 
this  oath,  I  do  not  feel  at  libert3'  to  give  this 
as  a  confident  interpretation,  but  suggest  the 
probability  that  such  is  here  the  purpose  of 
the  writer. 

18.  That  by  two  immutable  things— in 
the  promise  and  the  oath ;  both  equally'  and 
absolutely  sure:  for,  strictly  speaking,  God's 
promise  is  his  oath.  His  promise  pledges  his 
divine  veracity,  and  all  the  attributes  of  his 
nature ;  and  his  oath  can  do  no  more.  He 
condescends,  however,  to  human  weakness, 
and  subjects  his  utterances  to  the  law  of  our 
finite  limitations.  The  added  formula  of  an 
oath  seems  to  be  pledging  the  divine  veracity 
more  completely  to  the  fulfillment  of  its 
promises.  We  may  add,  however,  that  even 
with  men  the  distinction  between  the  word 
and  the  oath  is  only  seeming.  To  the  faith 
that  utters  ever3'thing  under  the  eye  of  Omni- 
science, every  word  has  the  sanctity  of  an  oath 


— in  which  it  was  (is)  impossible  for  God 

to  lie  (utter  falsehood).  Both  the  promise 
and  the  oath  equally  pledge  the  divine  verac- 
ity :  it  is  only  our  finite  weakness  that  super- 
adds to  the  sanctity  of  the  promise  the  sanctity 
of  the  oath.  We  may  have  a  strong  encour- 
agement (not  as  in  Common  Version,  conso- 
lation) who  have  fled  for  refuge  to  lay 
hold  upon  the  hope  set  (lying')  before 
us.  So,  I  think,  better  than  "that  we  who 
have  fled  for  refuge,  may  have  strong  encour- 
agement to  lay  hold  of,"  etc.  Though  it  is 
doubtful  if  the  elliptical  construction  should 
not  be  thus  filled  up:  "may  have  strong 
encouragement  to  hold  on  (KpaTelv),  who  have 
fled  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  of"  ((cpar^crat,  aorist). 
Lay  hold  of  (icpoT^CTai)  suits  much  better  to  the 
'who  have  fled  for  refuge'  (ol  KaTa<i>vy6vT(i) . 
Both  the  clauses  stand  harshly  alone.  The 
'  hope  '  that  lies  before  us  is  here  taken  objec- 
tively, as  the  thing  hoped  for,  not  the  grace 
of  hope,  as  just  below;  as  Rom.  8,  "a  hope 
that  is  seen  is  not  hope,"  plays  between  the 
subjective  and  objective  uses  of  the  word. 

19.  Which  [hope]  we  have  as  an  anchor 
of  the  soul.  The  anchor  of  hope  is  a  natural 
and  familiar  figure,  perhaps  suggested  here  by 
the  'fled  for  refuge'  (naroii.vytii'),  like  a  tossed 
ship  fleeing  for  refuge  to  its  harbor — both 
sure  and  steadfast,  and  Avhich  entereth 
into  that  within  the  vail.  These  predicates 
(on  account  of  the  connections  re,  Kai,  koi) 
must  all  be  construed  together.  They  are 
generally  taken  with  'anchor,' to  which  'sure 
and  steadfast'  are  especially  appropriate; 
'entering,'  etc.,  less  so.  This  applies  beauti- 
fully to  the  believer's  hope,  less  naturally  to 
the  'anchor.'  The  figure,  indeed,  is  not  with- 
out force  and  beauty  which  represents  the 
anchor  of  hope  thrown  not  downward  into 
life's  stormy  sea,  but  upward  into  the  tranquil 
deeps  ofthe  heavenly  sanctuary,  where  (unlike 
the  earthly  anchor)  \tlies,  holding  the  spiritual 
bark  through  all  its  stormy  course.  Granting 
freely  the  picturesque  beauty  of  this  figure, 
I  yet  see  nothing  in  the  position  of  the  words 


Ch.  VII.] 


HEBREWS. 


83 


20  Whither  the  forerunner  is  for  us  entered,  eweft  I  20  within  the  veil ;  whither  as  a  forerunner  Jesus  en- 
Jesus,  made  a  high  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  tered  for  us,  havinc  become  a  high  priest  for  ever 
Melchisedec  I        after  the  order  of  Melchi^edek. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


FOR  this  Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem,  priest  of  the 
most  hiuh  God,  who  met  Abraham  returning  from 
the  slaughter  of  the  kings,  and  blessetl  him  ; 


1      For  this  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  priest  of  God 
Most  High,  who  met  Abraham  returning  from  the 


to  prevent  their  being  connected  natuniUy 
with  'which  [hope],'  a  figui-e  that  more 
easily  suits  to  the  'entering  witiiin  the  veil.' 
In  either  case  it  forms  an  admirable  turning 
point  or  pivot  on  which  the  autlior  gracefully 
swings  round  to  his  main  theme,  from  which 
he  had  diverged  at  5  :  10,  with  a  reference  to 
Christ's  Melchisedec  priesthood,  and  to  which 
through  the  intervening  stages,  by  carrying 
the  believer's  hope  into  the  heavenly  sanc- 
tuary, the  home  of  that  royal  High  Priest, 
he  now  returns.*  The  writer  adds  most  natu- 
rally, and  returning  to  the  topic  dropped  at 
5:  10— 

aO.  Whither,  etc. ;  where  (Sirou,  where,  used 
pregnantly  for  on-oi,  whither ;  equivalent  to 
whither  he  entered  and  where  he  remained)  — 
as  a  forerunner  on  our  behalf  entered  Jestis. 
It  is  the  presence  of  Jesus  within  the  vail  that 
emboldens  our  hope  to  penetrate  that  mys- 
terious and  awful  place  in  which  we  "  draw 
near  to  God";  and  looking  back  from  this 
point  we  feel  more  inclined  to  regard  the  oath, 
which  at  ver.  17  gives  such  strong  assurance 
to  the  heirs  of  promise,  as  at  least  intended  to 
call  up  to  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  great 
Melchisedec  oath  and  promise  which,  though 
he  might  reserve  it  for  a  fuller  mention  else- 
where, he  could  scarcely  leave  entirely  un- 
noticed here.  I  think  he  lets  it  lie  faintly  out- 
lined on  the  horizon  of  his  thought.  For 
us,  on  our  behalf.  In  this  Jesus  resembled 
the  earthly  high  priest,  who,  after  slaughter- 
ing the  victim  in  the  outer  court,  entered  with 
its  blood  on  behalf  of  the  people  into  the 
Holiest  of  All,  the  symbolical  presence  of  God. 
But  there  the  parallel  ends.  The  earthly  priest 
entered  alone  but  once  a  year,  and  with  none 
to  follow.  Jesus  entered  to  stay,  and  as  Fore- 
runner o(  his  people:  that  where  he  is  they 
might  be.  After  the  order  of  Melchisedec  be- 
coming a  high  priest  forever.  This  formally 
launcliesthe  author  on  his  great  theme.  ^  After 
the  order  of  Melchisedec,'  in  reversed  order,  is 


placed  emphatically  first  as  the  topic  which  is 
to  be  immediately  treated.  After  the  likeness 
of  Melchisedec  he  thus  appears  as  royal,  solo, 
perpetual  Priest;  after  the  likeness  of  Aaron, 
he  becomes  a  High  Priest;  the  author  here 
again,  as  at  5  :  10,  including  the  Levitical 
element,  which  gives  to  his  priesthood  com- 
pleteness. As  antitype  of  Melchisedec -he 
would  have  a  royal,  untransferable,  unending 
priesthood,  but  a  'barren  scepter'  and  a  barren 
priesthood,  with  no  atoning  sacrifice.  Asiinti- 
type  of  Aaron,  he  has  a  real  efficacit)us  sacri- 
fice in  the  true  tabernacle :  and  absorbing 
into  his  person  the  significance  of  both  these 
priesthoods,  he  holds  them  both  forever. 


Ch.  7:  (3)  The  royal  Melchisedec  priest- 
hood of  Christ.     (1-28.) 

(a)  Summary  of  the  Old  Testament  descrip- 
tion of  Melchisedec  in  those  historical  feat- 
ures which  determine  the  character  of  his 
priesthood.     (1-3.) 

1.  For  this  Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem, 
priest  of  the  most  high  God.  There  has 
been  much  speculation  regarding  this  myste- 
rious personage,  who  in  the  narrative  of  Gen- 
esis flashes  a  moment  on  our  view,  as  one  pe- 
culiarly exalted,  and  then  utterly  disappears, 
except,  in  one  brief  sentence  of  the  Psalms,  as 
priestly  type  of  the  Son  of  God.  There  has 
been  expended  on  him  much  idle  conjecture. 
He  has  been  supposed  to  be  Shem ;  to  be  a 
man  created  for  the  express  occasion ;  to  be 
an  angel — nay,  as  if  to  convict  the  Scripture 
of  the  folly  of  likening  our  Lord  to  himself, 
and  making  him  a  priest  after  his  own  order, 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  himself.  Every  such 
hypothesis  may  bo  summarily  dismissed. 
There  is  nothing,  either,  in  the  text  of  Gene- 
sis, or  the  commentary  in  Hebrews,  which, 
properly  considered,  countenances  such  as- 
sumptions. On  his  origin  and  histoiy  the 
vail  was  evidently  not  intended  to  be  lifted. 
Raised  up  for  a  special  purpose,  his  origin  and 


»  The  passage  furnishes  oneof  the  instances  of  grace-  1  and  which,  like  numberless  other  rhetorical  touches, 
ful  and  designed  transition,  so  familiar  to  our  author,  I  mark  unmistakably  a  hand  other  than  that  of  PiuL 


84 


HEBREWS. 


[Cii.  VII. 


end  shrouded  in  intentional  obscurity,  he  was 
brought  into  personal  contact  with  the  father 
of  the  Jewish  race,  that  when  a  change  should 
be  necessary  in  the  Jewish  priestly  order  their 
own  annals  might  foreshadtrw  and  justify  the 
])roceeding  in  the  exhibition  of  one  before 
whom  Abraham  himself,  and  in  him  his 
priestly  descendants,  had  bowed  in  homage. 
So  at  least  God  has  used  Melchisedec,  and  so 
we  may  presume  he  intended  to  use  him,  and 
that  to  this  use  the  Old  Testament  narrative 
was  adjusted.  Whatever  the  sacred  historian 
may  have  known,  or  not  known,  regarding 
Melchisedec' s  ancestry  and  historical  relations, 
the  Spirit  of  God  that  presided  over  the  nar- 
rative caused  just  so  much  to  be  recorded  as 
answered  the  purpose  of  his  introduction.  He 
was  to  be  used  simply  as  a  type.  It  mattered 
not  so  much  what  he  was  as  what  he  appeared. 
The  mode  of  exhibiting  him  met  all  the  pur- 
poses which  he  was  to  subserve  in  sacred  his- 
tory. His  role,  however,  in  the  historic  drama, 
though  brief,  was  one  of  pre-eminent  dignity. 
He  was  an  earthly  king,  probably,  in  that  city 
which  was  subsequently  to  be  the  royal  city 
of  David,  and  of  David's  royal  line.  He 
was  a  priest,  the  first  priest  mentioned  in  the 
sacred  annals,  and  a  priest  of  the  Most  High 
God.  Thus  he  was  one  of  the  few  who  still 
preserved  uncorrupted  the  traditionary  mono- 
theism of  the  ante-Noachian  period.  Prob- 
ably, he  was  one  of  that  race  of  Shem  that,  as 
descendants  of  Lud,  occupied  Canaan  before 
its  conquest  by  the  Canaanites,  and  thus  be- 
longed to  the  family  which  had  received  the 
peculiar  blessing  of  Noah.  Inferior  to  Abra- 
ham in  his  personal  (though  not  in  his  official) 
future,  he  was  superior  to  him  in  the  actual 
present.  Abraham's  hopes  and  prospects  were 
in  the  bud  ;  Melchisedec's  greatness  was  in  its 
full  maturity.  Abraham  was  a  king  in  em- 
bryo, the  father  of  kings,  the  father  of  priests, 
the  ancestor  of  him  with  whom  a  typical  con- 
nection should  alone  rescue  the  name  of  Mel- 
chisedec from  oblivion.  But  as  yet  all  this  was 
not,  and  Melchisedec  now  stood  before  Abra- 
ham in  the  combined  dignities  of  actual  king- 
ship and  priesthood — two  persons  uncon- 
sciously confronting  each  other,  the  one  the 
real  ancestor,  tlie  other  the  typical  representa- 
tive, of  that  Greater  One  in  whom  each  was  to 
find  all  his  significance  and  all  his  greatness ! 
The  long,  swelling  period  which  opens  the 


chapter  divides  itself  into  two  parts.  The 
first  consists  of  clauses  describing  tlie  subject, 
Melchisedec,  and  is  a  mere  resu^ne  of  the  facts 
stated  in  Genesis.  The  second  (commencing 
with,  being  first,  etc.,  ver.  2)  consists  of 
clauses  referring  to  the  predicate  (abideth  a 
priest,  etc.,  ver.  3),  and  declares  under  what 
character  and  conditions  he  so  abides.  The 
first  identifies  the  man;  the  second  portrays 
the  priest,  and  is  the  author's  statement  of 
those  points  (as  deduced  from  the  narrative), 
which  made  Melchisedec's  priesthood  a  type 
of  our  Lord's.  Tor  this  Melchisedec' — the 
'for'  connects  the  passage  directly  with  the 
preceding,  and  as  it  terminates  emphatically 
with  "abideth  a  priest  continually,"  has  prob- 
ably in  mind  the  "forever"  which  closes  the 
preceding  chapter.  'King  of  Salem.'  On 
the  locality  of  this  'Salem'  opinions  differ. 
Many  claim  that  the  city  of  David  did  not  at 
this  time  bear  this  appellation,  but  that  of 
Jebus,  and  that  some  other  place,  probably  the 
Salim  near  Enon,  mentioned  in  John  3  :  23, 
is  referred  to;  and  here,  according  to  Jerome, 
were  pointed  out  extensive  remains  of  Mel- 
chisedec's palace.  This,  however,  may  safely 
be  attributed  to  the  local  ambition,  whicli 
took  advantage  of  the  coincidence  of  a  name, 
while  tradition,  Josephus  ("Antiquities," 
I  :  10,  2),  the  Targumists,  and  most  of  the 
Fathers,  identified  it  with  Jerusalem.  The 
name  Salim  for  Jerusalem,  occurring  in  one 
of  the  late  Psalms  (76  :  2),  may,  as  well  re- 
marked by  Delitzsch,  be  such  an  archaism  as 
poetry  loves,  and  may  be  the  then  nearly  ob- 
solete and  therefore  poetic  ancient  name  of  the 
town.  To  Bleek's  objection  that,  if  our  author 
had  referred  to  Jerusalem,  he  would  have 
urged  the  sacred  associations  of  the  place,  we 
may  reply  that  such  expansion  would  have 
been  inconsistent  with  the  studied  brevity  ot 
the  passage,  while  the  hint  of  the  significance 
of  the  name  might  well  be  deemed  sufficient. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  intrinsic  probabilities 
are  all  in  favor  of  assigning  the  typical  King 
of  Kighteousness  and  Peace  to  the  locality 
whose  name  was  to  be  associated  with  the 
typical   and  then   with   the  spiritual    capital 

(12  ;  22;  Gal.  4:  26;  Rev.  21  :  2)    of    that    kingdom    for- 

ever.  That  the  author  takes  the  word  in  any 
other  sense  than  as  the  name  of  a  place  is  im- 
probable. 'Priest  of  the  most  high  God.' 
The  union  of  kingly  and  priestly  offices  be- 


Ch.  VII.] 


HEBREWS. 


85 


2  To  whom  also  Abraham  gave  a  tenth  part  of  all ; 
first  being  by  interpretaiiou  King  of  righteousness, 
and  after  that  also  King  of  Salem,  which  is,  King  of 
peace ; 

3  Without  father,  without  mother,  without  descent, 
having  neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of  life;  but 


2  slaughter  of  the  kings,  and  blessed  him,  to  whom 
also  Abraham  divided  a  tenth  part  of  all  (being  tirsi, 
by  interpretation.  King  <if  righteousness,  anu  Ihcii 

3  also  King  of  t^alem,  which  is.  King  of  i)eace;  with- 
out father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy,  hav- 
ing ueither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but 


longed  to  the  simplicity  of  early  times,  and 
was  common  among  the  heathen.  The  Ho- 
meric king  officiates  likewise  as  priest.  The 
knowledge  of  the  Supreme  God  had  not,  it 
seems,  entirely  disappeared,  and  his  worship 
existed  sporadically,  even  down  to  a  much 
later  time,  although,  as  in  the  case  of  Balaam, 
often  incongruously  blended  with  idolatrous 
rites  and  errors.  Melcliisedec  was  clearly  rec- 
ognized by  Abraham  as  worshiping  tne  same 
God  with  himself.  Who  met  Abraham  re- 
turning from  the  slaughter  of  the  kings, 
and  blessed  him.  The  fact  here  mentioned 
is  more  than  a  mere  incident  recorded  to  com- 
plete or  give  definitness  to  the  picture.  It  has 
a  purpose  here,  as  doubtless  this  specific  con- 
junction of  events  had  in  the  original  transac- 
tion. God  not  only  brought  Melchisedec  into 
contact  with  Abraham,  the  head  of  the  Jew- 
ish race,  rather  than  with  any  other  Old  Tes- 
tament worthy,  but  with  Abraham  at  the  pre- 
cise period  of  his  history,  when,  having 
avenged  five  kings  and  conquered  four,  he  was 
returning  in  the  flush  of  victory,  and  laden 
with  the  spoils  of  triumph.  With  his  feet  just 
taken  from  the  necks  of  vanquished  mon- 
archs,  his  recognition  of  Melchisedec's  superi- 
ority would  be  doubly  significant. 

2.  To  whom  also  Abraham  gave  a  tenth 
part  of  all  ;  namely,  the  spoils.  Abraham 
did  this  voluntarily,  and  probably  with  an  in- 
stant perception  of  a  certain  majesty  attending 
the  royal  priest.  The  homage,  however,  was 
y)aid  to  the  priest,  not  to  the  king.  It  was  a 
religious  offering,  not  a  political  tribute.  It 
shows  also  how  early  and  natural  was  the  ren- 
dering of  the  tenth.  Thus  far  we  have  a  sum- 
mary of  the  fads  of  the  narrative. 

The  author  now  proceeds  to  comment  on 
them  in  their  bearing  on  Melchisedec's  priest- 
hood, as  illustrating  that  of  Christ.  The  in- 
ferences are  partly  positive,  partly  negative; 
partly  drawn  from  the  statements,  partly  from 
the  silence  of  Scripture.  They  show  under 
what  conditions  Melchisedec  may  be  said  to 
have  had  a  perpetual  priesthood.  They  are 
simply  the  author's  deductions  from  the  brief 
account  in  Genesis,  and  imply  no  knowledge 


of  him  outside  of  that  account.  He  has  looked 
to  the  Psalm,  "Thou  art  a  priest,"  etc.,  and 
then  turned  back  to  Genesis  to  see  the  features 
of  that  priestliood  which  had  so  wonderful  an 
exaltation;  what  in  Melchisedec's  person, 
position,  and  office,  would  shed  light  on  this 
remarkable  declaration.  He  passes  in  rapid 
review  the  points.  His  name,  the  name  of  hij 
city,  his  kingly  and  priestly  office  conjoined, 
his  solitary  personality  and  priesthood,  both 
exhibiting  no  antecedent  and  no  succession ; 
thus  what  is  told  and  what  is  suppressed  alike 
constitute  grounds  of  his  relation  to  the  great 
High  Priest  of  the  New  Covenant.  The  au- 
thor is  simply  interpreting  Scripture,  and  his 
interpretation  is  a  striking  example  of  what 
spiritual  insight  can  legitimately  deduce  from 
the  language  and  the  silence  of  a  text.  It  has 
no  analogy  to  the  fanciful  deductions  of  the 
Eabbins.  First  being  by  interpretation 
King  of  righteousness — that  is,  his  name 
being  by  its  interpretation,  etc.  Josephus  ex- 
plains it  "  righteous  king"  ;  our  author  prob- 
ably conceives  it,  in  its  application  to  Christ, 
as  '  king  in  the  realm  of  righteousness.'  And 
then  also  King  of  Salem,  which  is  King 
of  peace.  Another  typical  feature  in  Jiis 
portraiture,  derived  from  the  city  in  which  he 
reigned.  As  applied  to  Melchisedec,  it  would 
denote  simply  'peaceful  king';  to  the  Mes- 
siah, 'king  in  the  realm  of  peace,'  which 
he  first  creates  between  man  and  God  (Bom. 
5:1);  then  inwardly  in  the  soul  (John  14:27); 
then  outwardly  among  men,  and  finsilly  uni- 
versally in  the  world. 

3.  The  deductions  e  silentio.  The  preced- 
ing points  are  rather  incidental,  and  would 
not  be  pressed;  the  next  are  vital,  giving  the 
distinctive  character  of  Christ's  priesthood. 
Without  father,  without  mother,  Avithout 
{record  o/]  descent,  having  neither  be- 
ginning of  days,  nor  end  of  life.  These 
epithets  apply  to  Melchisedec,  not  as  a  priest, 
but  as  a  man,  and  are  the  traits  in  his  personal 
history  on  which  re«ts  the  peculiar  character 
of  his  priesthood.  Because  he  pemnnally  ap- 
pears before  us  with  no  records  of  origin  or  of 
death,  therefore  he  can  appear  as  having  an 


86 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God ;  abideth  a  priest  con- 
tinually. 


made  like  unto  the  Son  of  God),  abideth  a  priest 
continually. 


unborrowed  and  hence  untransmitted,  unsu- 
perseded  priesthood.  As  to  the  import  of 
tliese  affirmations,  they  stand  or  fail  togetlier. 
If  one  demands  an  interpretation  such  as 
throws  a  real  mystery  about  Melchisedec,  all 
do.  If  one  may  be  taken  to  express  the  im- 
pression made  by  the  silence  of  the  historian, 
all  may.  That  this  latter  is  the  correct  view, 
is  now  generally  admitted,  and  I  conceive  to 
be  beyond  a  doubt.  The  writer  has  no  inter- 
est in  involving  in  mystery  the  person  of  Mel- 
chisedec. He  puts  strongly  certain  points /or 
the  use  wldck  he  wishes  to  make  of  them  as 
illustrating  certain  features  in  the  person,  and 
hence  the  priesthood,  of  his  antitype.  Wliat 
Christ  is  really,  Melchisedec  must  be  appar- 
ently; and  this  is  all  that  is  required.  In  a 
historical  narration,  which  makes  in  general 
great  account  of  parentage;  in  which  genea- 
logical tables  are  constantly  given  and  at  great 
length,  and  scarcely  a  sacred  name  is  men- 
tioned without  a  scrupulous  record  of  ancestry 
and  of  end, — he,  the  greatest  of  them  all,  has 
no  such  mention.  No  father,  Jio  mother,  no 
ancestry,  no  birth,  no  death,  is  recorded  of 
him.  He  stands,  a  solitary  instance  of  a  per- 
sonage whose  function  transcends  that  of  every 
other  Scripture  character,  type  of  the  eternal 
kingship  and  eternal  priesthood  of  the  Son  of 
God,  yet— or  rather,  therefore — with  not  one 
word  to  shed  light  on  his  family  or  his  nation, 
his  reign,  or  his  destiny.  The  remarkablencss 
of  the  phenomenon  warrants  the  inference 
that  the  silence  is  intentional  and  significant. 
Had  the  epithets  appeared  in  the  original  nar- 
rative, the  case  would  have  been  very  differ- 
ent :  but  a  commentary  on  the  reticence  of 
Moses  is  quite  another  matter;  the  question  is 
not  of  a  historical  fact,  but  of  an  expressive 
symbol.  Nothing  turns  on  the  question 
whether  Melchisedec  was  really  the  miracu- 
lous person  which  these  epithets,  if  pressed, 
would  make  him.  The  seeming  is,  for  the 
typical  use,  as  good  as  the  reality ;  the  non- 
ai>pearance  is  equivalent  to  the  non-existence, 
and  here  emphatically,  "c?e?^o/^  apparentibus 
et  de  non  ea^istentlhus,  eadetn  est  ratio."  The 
import  of  the  severM  predicates  is  obvious. 
He  is  one  of  whom  no  father  or  mother  is 
recorded  (a  similar  idiom  is  familiar  to  the 
classics — nullo  patre),    with    no  genealogical 


record  (which  is  in  fact  the  meaning  of  the 
word),  and  having  in  history  no  beginning  or 
end  of  life.  The  words  are  selected:  no  "end 
of  life"  ;  therefore,  he  liveth.  But  made 
like  (assim,ilated)  unto  the  Son  of  God* 
This  refers  to  the  preceding  clauses,  especially 
the  last,  in  which  he  appears  as  having  neither 
beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life.  It  is  the 
summation  of  these  statements.  As  one  who 
appears  exempt  from  the  limitatit)ns  of  mortal 
life,  from  its  beginning  and  its  end,  Melchise- 
dec has  been  conformed,  assimilated  to  the  Son 
of  God.  This  refers  not  to  our  Lord  in  his 
human  nature,  for  as  such  he  was  not  without 
parentage,  genealogy,  recorded  beginning  of 
days,  and  even  end  of  life — at  least,  death; 
nor  to  him  as  high  priest  after  his  exaltation 
(for  as  such  Christ  was  assimilated  to  him,  not 
he  to  Christ);  but  tt)  the  Son  of  God  in  his 
eternal,  pre-existent  nature  as  the  Only  Be- 
gotten. The  comparison,  then,  is  not  between 
Melchisedec  as  priest,  and  Christ  as  priest,  but 
between  those  features  in  the  recorded  person- 
ality of  Melchisedec,  which  enable  him  to  ap- 
pear  as  perpetual  priest,  and  those  attributes 
of  the  Son  of  God  which  enable  him  to  be  an 
eternal  priest.  A  basis  for  Melchisedec's  un- 
borrowed and  untransmitted  priesthood  is 
found  in  his  appearance  in  the  sacred  page 
with  a  life  which  has  no  defined  limit  at  either 
extreme,  and  is  bound  to  the  human  race  by 
no  recorded  genealogy  ;  just  as  the  eternal  ex- 
istence of  the  divine  Logos  was  the  bjisis  on 
which  could  rest  his  absolutely  untransmitted 
and  eternal  priesthood.  The  latent  argument 
is:  Melchisedec  appears  in  his  personality  as- 
similated to  the  eternal  Son  of  God;  hence, 
he  could  have  a  priesthood  which  should 
tj'pify  the  exalted  and  everlasting  priesthood 
of  the  Son  of  God.  Looking  at  the  brief  pas- 
sage in  the  Psalm,  and  then  at  the  brief  pas- 
sage in  Genesis,  the  author  has  spelled  out 
from  the  latter,  with  the  divining  sagacity  of 
inspiration,  those  characteristics  of  Melchise- 
dec which  raised  him  to  so  exalted  an  office 
as  that  in  which  the  Psalm  exhibits  him. 
Under  these  conditions,  and  by  virtue  of 
these  qualities,  Melchisedec  abideth  a  priest 
continually  {perj>etunlly).  He  has,  so  far 
as  appears,  no  successor.  He  had,  probably, 
none  in  fact,  being  in  no  priestly  line,  and  his 


Ch.  VIL] 


HEBREWS. 


87 


4  Now  consider  how  great  this  man  teas,  unto  whom 
evc-n  the  patriarch  Abraham  gave  the  tenth  of  the 
sj>oils. 

0  And  verily  they  that  are  of  the  sons  of  Levi,  wlio 


4  Now  consider  how  great  this  man  was,  unto  wlioni 
Abraham,  the  patriarch,  gave  a  tenth  oulof  the  chief 

5  spoils.    And  they  indeed  of  the  sons  of  l^evi  that  re- 


priesthood  tcnninatiiig  with  himself.  Hence, 
as  he  does  not  appear  as  dying,  his  priesthood 
does  not  appear  as  terniinatiiig.  That  it  must 
ill  reality  have  terminated  is  clear,  else  we 
liave  the  monstrosity  of  two  eternal  parallel 
priesthoods,  the  typical  and  the  antit\-pical. 
To  suppose  with  some  that  he  'abides  a  priest 
perpetually'  by  his  priesthood  being  absorbed 
ijito  that  of  Clirist  is  to  make  a  vicious  circle 
<tf  argument;  for  Christ  is  Priest  after  the 
likeness  of  Melchisedec,  because  Melchisedec 
has  a  perpetual  i)riesthood;  and  Melchisedec 
has  a  perpetual  priesthood  only  as  it  is  per- 
petuated in  that  of  Christ.  Melchisedec, 
then,  is  perpetual  priest  as  one  who  has  no 
successor,  and  does  not  apj)ear  as  dj'ing.  The 
author,  too,  chooses  his  terms  with  care.  He 
does  not  say  of  Melchisedec  that  he  abides  ^ 
pnest  foi-ever;  this  absolute  expression  he  re- 
serves for  Christ.  The  phrase  'perpetually' 
(«i9  TO  Sirji-eKcs)  may  mean  'forever'  when  its 
subject  would  naturally  take  such  a  predicate. 
The  Greek,  like  its  English  equivalent,  takes  its 
extent  from  the  subject  to  which  it  is  applied 

(/))  Personal  greatness  of  Melchisedec  illus- 
trated bj'  his  receiving  tithes  from  Abraham, 
and  that  under  extraordinary  conditions. 
(4-10.) 

Christ  as  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchise- 
dec has  superseded  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
It  becomes  pertinent  to  inquire,  especially  for 
Jewish  readers,  how  great  a  person  this  type 
was,  not  only  ti'picallj',  but  personally.  This 
section  is  often  misconceived,  as  I  tiiink,  by 
being  regarded  as  commencing  the  enumera- 
tion of  Christ's  priestlj'  prerogatives,  as  Mel- 
chisedec Priest.  This  point  is  not  yet  touched; 
we  have  simply  the  pers<mal  and  official  great- 
ness of  Melchisedec  himself.  I  have  already 
remarked  on  the  obvious  purpose  of  God  in 
bringing  Melchisedec  into  contact  with  Abra- 
ham in  the  hour  of  Abraham's  military'  tri- 
umph; it  is  still  more  obvious  in  bringing  him 
into  contact  with  Abraham  himself,  rather 
than  with  any  of  his  descendants,  and  secur- 
ing for  him,  in  his  homage,  that  of  all  his  de- 
scendants, including  of  course  Moses. 


4.  Now  consider  how  great  this  man 
was,  unto  whom  (not  'even,'  as  in  the  Com- 
mon  Version,  but  to  whom,  in  addition  to  all 
his  ot/ier  marks  of  dignity,  also^)  the  patri^ 
arch  Abraham  gave  the  tenth  of  the 
(choicest)  spoils.  The  author  selects  for  com- 
ment that  particiflar  feature  in  the  recorded 
transaction  which  was  pertinent  to  his  object. 
Abraham  paid  tithes  to  Melchisedec,  evidently 
self-moved  and  in  acknowledgment  of  his 
priestly  character.  His  respect  was  shown  by 
the  natureof  the  gift :  he  gave  a  tenth  not  mere- 
ly of  all,  but  (oLKftoeivia,  the  top  of  the  heap)  of  the 
choicest  spoils,  and  apparently  not  merely  a 
tenth  of  the  choicest,  but  a  tenth  of  all,  and 
that  consisting  of  the  choicest.  Placed  em- 
phatically at  the  close  is  his  designation  as 
'  patriarch  '  (jrarpidp^n*),  used  in  the  Septua- 
gint  to  denote  the  head  of  a  family,  but  later 
the  head  of  a  race.  It  is  applied,  in  4  Mac.  7  : 
19,  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  Acts  2  : 
29,  to  David ;  Acts  7  :  8,  9,  to  the  sons  of  Jacob ; 
here,  with  special  emphasis  designating  the 
great  Founder  of  the  race.  Of  course,  the 
greater  was  Abraham,  the  greater  he  to  whom 
Abraham  was  inferior.  The  general  state- 
ment is  now  illustrated  by  comparison  of  the 
conditions  under  which  Melchisedec  and  the 
Levitical  priests  respectively  received  tithes. 
The  points  of  difference  are  four  :  The  Levit- 
ical priests  titheby  law  ;  he  withoutlaw,  by  vol- 
untary bestowment  ;  they  tithe  their  br^hren, 
whom  only  law  could  enable  them  to  tithe, 
he  a  stranger,  to  whom  he  must  be,  therefore, 
superior;  they  tithe  the  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, he  Abraham  himself;  they  tithe  as 
djnng  men,  he  as  one  of  whom  it  is  testified 
that  he  liveth. 

5.  And  verily,  etc. — tliey  indeed  (or,  while 
they)  of  the  sons  of  Levi  that  receive  thepriest'  s 
office :  or  (with  Delit/.sch  and  Kurtz,  taking  («) 
of  07'igin  nx^d  not  partitively)  "  while  they. who 
receive  from  the  sons  of  Levi  the  priesthood." 
The  latter  is  argued  by  Kurtz  on  the  ground 
that  in  the  passage  below  (i(  avrCv,  'dcM-iving 
his  lineage  from  them')  the  ])reposition  (it) 
marks  origin,  and  must  therefore  here.     But 


1  Thougli  the  teu,  also,  is  of  doubtful  genuineness. 


88 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


receive  the  office  of  the  priesthood,  have  a  cominand- 
lueut  to  take  tithes  of  the  people  according  to  the  law, 
that  is,  of  their  Itrethreu,  though  they  cuiue  out  of  the 
loins  of  Abraham  : 

6  But  he  whose  descent  is  not  counted  from  theiu  re- 
ceived tithes  ot  Abraham,  and  blessed  him  that  had  the 
promises. 

7  And  without  all  contradiction  the  less  is  blessed  of 
better. 


ceive  the  priest's  office  have  commandment  to  take 
tithes  of  the  people  according  to  the  law,  that  is,  of 
their  brethren,  though  these  have  come  out  of  the 

6  loins  of  Abraham :   but  he  whose  genealogy  is  not 
counted  from  them  hath  taken  tithes  of  Abraham, 

7  and  hath  blessed  him  that  hath  the  promises.    But 
without  any  dispute  the  less  is  blessed  of  the  better. 


nothing  hinders  our  talcing  it  as  partitive  in 
the  one  case  and  not  in  the  other.  And  I  see 
no  special  difficulty  in  either  rendering.  The 
iauthor  is  not  comparing  the  priests  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  with  the  other  Levites,  but  the  Levit- 
ical  priests  with  Melchisedec;  and  the  fact 
that  the  tithing  was  made  indirectly  by  the 
priests  through  the  Levites  need  in  this  brief 
statement  create  no  difficulty.  Virtually  and 
really  the  priests  tithed  the  i)oople.  Have  a 
commandment,  etc.  Have  a  cotnmand, 
according  to  the  law,  to  tithe  the  people,  that 
is,  their  bretJtren.  The  people  were  the  breth- 
ren, and  so  the  equals  of  the  Levitieal  priests, 
and  could  be  tithed  bj' them  therefore  only  by 
express  ordinance.  Melchisedec  was  of  another 
race,  and  his  receiving  tithes,  voluntarily  be- 
stowed, must  be  on  the  ground  of  his  intrinsic 
and  recognized  superiority.  The  subject  is  a 
delicate  one  to  a  Jew,  and  but  briefly  touched. 
Though,  etc.  {although  they  have  issued  from 
the  loins  of  Abraham').  The  'although' 
here  is  somewhat  difficult.  I  think  it  is  in- 
tended to  intimate  that  those  brethren  as 
having  sprung  from  Abraham  might  expect 
to  be  exempted  from  the  tithing  (which 
marked  subordination);  and  thus  in  eleva- 
ting (he  Levitieal  tithing  as  embracing  even 
the  descendants  of  Abraham,  more  highly  to 
exalt  Melchisedec,  who,  as  superior  to  them, 
rose  proportionably  higher.  If  the  law  al- 
lowed them  to  tithe  the  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, how  great  must  he  be  who,  without 
legal  enactment,  tithed  Abraham  himself! 
The  general  thought  is,  while  the  priests 
of  Israel  tithed  only  by  special  enactment 
those  who,  as  their  brethren,  descendants  in 
common  with  tiiem  from  Abraham,  were 
naturally  equal,  Melchisedec,  a  stranger,  sus- 


taining no  natural  affinity  to  Abraham,  tithed 
him  with  no  law  that  authorized  the  one  to 
take  and  required  the  other  to  give,  and  stands 
therefore  in  a  relation  of  intrinsic  superiority 
to  the  Father  of  the  race,  while  they  but  sus- 
tain a  conventional  and  merely  legal  superior- 
ity to  his  descendants. 

6.  But  he  whose  descent  is  not  counted 
from  them — or,  but  lie,  while  not  reckoning 
his  descent  from  them^ — a  stranger  of  a  differ- 
ent race,  without  legal  enactment— received 
tithes  of,  etc. ;  or.  hath  tithed  Abraliam,  the 
head  of  the  race,  father  both  of  tithers  and 
tithed.  And  (hath)  blessed  him  that  had 
(hath)  the  promises.  Abraham  is  before 
presented  as  rendering  homage  to  Melchisedec 
in  the  very  flush  of  victorj'.  He  is  now  repre- 
sented as  receiving  the  priestly  blessing  of 
Melchisedec,  while  the  bearer  in  himself  of 
all  the  splendid  potentialities,  and  the  head  of 
that  vast  system  of  glorious  realities  wrapped 
up  in  the  future  of  his  race.  He  stands  in  his 
noblest  character  at  the  fountain  head  of  the 
world's  spiritual  history,  in  order  still  further 
to  magnify  Melchisedec.  The  blessing  is 
solemn,  formal,  priestly,  and  prophetic.  It  is 
like  the  blessing  which  our  Lord  pronounced 
upon  his  disciples,  when  at  his  ascension  from 
Olivet,  "he  lifted  up  his  hands  and  blessed 
them."  It  fullj'  warrants  the  deduction  of 
the  next  verse.  The  historical  present,  "hath 
tithed"  (ie&<.Ka-ruiK(v),  makes  proper  also  the 
jyresent  rendering  of  the  participle  "  him  who 
hath,"  or  to  give  the  emphasis  of  its  position, 
'him  who  possesseth.'* 

7.  And  without  all  contradiction  the 
less  is  blessed  of  the  better  {by  the 
greater).  The  reference  is  of  course  to  formal 
and  official  blessing.* 


1  The  o  ie  may  be  taken  as  subject,  but  he,  with  tiri  I  "  Abraham  "  being  taken  out  of  its  naturally  emphatic 
y(Vfa.Koyovii(vo<:  as  predicate:  or  as  above,  o  •ytfcaA,  as  j  position,  for  the  rhythmical  balance  and  augmented 
subject:  in  neither  case  is  o  li  united  as  65e,  this  person.  \  strength  of  the  whole. 

*  The  original  is  finely  chiastic  :  "hath  tithed  Abra-  *  The  neuter  (tAoTToi')  expresses  the  thought  in  its 
ham,  and  him  who  hath  the  promises  hath  blessed  ;  "    utmost  generality  ;  as  perhaps  also  iiiiC,avo<;  at  C  :  16. 


Ch.  VIL] 


HEBREWS. 


80 


8  And  here  men  that  die  receive  (ithes;  but  there  I  8  And  here  men  who  die  receive  tithes;  but  there  one, 
he  receiveth  them,  of  whom  it  is  witnessed  that  he  '  9  of  whom  il  is  witnessed  tliat  lie  liveth.  And,  so  to' 
liveth.                                                                                          I  say,  through    Abraham   even    Levi,   who   rect'ivelli 

9  And  as  I  may  so  say,  Levi  also,  who  receivetli  |  10  tithes,  hatli  paitl  tithes;  for  he  was  yet  iu  the  loins 
tithes,  paid  tithes  in  Abiuliam.                                            I  of  his  father,  when  Melchizedek  met  him. 

10  For  he  was  yet  iu  the  loins  of  his  father,  when 
Melchisedec  met  him. 


8.  And  here  {here,  indeed,  ifie  /ncf)'  in  the 
case  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  in  the  case 
nearest  in  time  and  most  familier  to  the  writer 
and  his  readers:  the  reference  is  not  here  to 
the  order  in  which  the  two  classes  have  been 
spoken  of.  Men  that  die  {dying  tnen)  re- 
ceive tithes.  'Men  that  die,'  either  equiva- 
lent to  mortal  man  ;  or,  better,  men  dying  one 
after  another,  pen)Ctually  dying.  The  pri- 
mary emphasis  is  on  '  dying ' ;  but  a  secondary 
emphasis  is  on  'men'  ;  otherwise  we  should 
have  had  simply  'those  that  die'  (oi  ano6vri<i- 
Koi>T€<:).  The  author  thus  throws  a  slight  vail 
of  mystery'  over  Melchisedec;  he  puts  pur- 
posely out  of  view  his  human  personality,  to 
emphasize  that  feature  of  his  similarity  to  the 
Son  of  God,  feliat  he  liveth.  But  there,  in  the 
case  of  Melchisedec,  remoter  in  time  and  to 
the  readers'  thought.^  He  [received  thetn]  of 
whom  it  is  witnessed  that  he  liveth.  How 
and  where  testified?  Not,  of  course,  by  the 
author,  but  in  the  Old  Testament  narrative; 
and  there,  as  above  remarked,  by  the  deep 
vail  of  silence  thrown  over  his  origin  and 
death,  a  silence  so  exceptional  to  its  general 
manner.  Above,  this  absence  of  parentage  and 
death  marks  Melchisedec's  fitness  for  symbol- 
izing the  eternity  of  Christ's  priesthood  :  here 
its  more  immediate  purpose  is  to  enhance  the 
dignity  of  Melchisedec  himself 

9.  And — as  one  might  say,  through  Abra- 
ham even  Levi  who  receiveth  tithes  hath 
paid  tithes.  This  is  commonly  (as  by  Alford) 
placed  co-ordinately  with  ver.  5-8,  as  a  third 
(or  fourth)  proof  of  the  inferiority  of  the 
Levitical  priesthood  to  that  of  Melchisedec. 
It  may,  indeed,  be  taken  as  another  proof  of 
the  superiority  of  Melchisedec  to  the  Levitical 
priests — the  comparison  of  their  7J?vVsif/(oorf 
comes  in  later — but  it  is,  perhaps,  better  to 
carry  it  back  to  ver.  4,  and  regard  it  as  an 
advance  on  the  statement  there  made  in  illus- 
tration of  Melchisedec's  greatness ;  all  between 
ver.  5-8,  being  a  parenthetical  statement  of 


i  the  different  conditions  under  which  Melchise- 
I  dec  and  the  Levitical  priests  received  tithes; 
and  the  author  now  returning  to  complete  the 
picture  of  ver.  4,  by  representing  Levi  as  ptiy- 
1  ing  tithes  in  Abraham  his  ancestor.  Still 
I  nothing  is  lost,  perhaps,  by  regarding  ver.  9, 
I  10,  as  an  after  thought;  especially  as  this  may 
be  indicated  by  the  '  as  one  might  say,'  which 
implies  that  the  thought  is  not  with  the  author 
one  of  primary  importance,  and  the  meaning 
of  which  phrase  there  is  no  reason  to  question. 
10.  For  he  was  yet  (still)  in  the  loins  of 
his  father,  when  Melchisedec  met  him. 
Levi,  here  put  generically  for  his  tribe,  was 
potentially  in  Abraham.  He  therefore  in 
Abraham  rendered, 'as  one  might  say,'  homage 
to  Melchisedec.  '  Still  (tn)  in  the  loins'  stands 
contrasted  with  the  '  having  issued  from  the 
loins'  in  ver.  5.  The  sentiment  here  expressed 
half  hesitatingly  by  the  author,  involves, 
doubtless,  a  great  truth.  The  stream  is  con- 
tained in  the  fountain;  the  branches  in  the 
stock  ;  the  stock  itself  in  the  root  and  seed. 
In  Adam  lay  the  whole  body  of  his  descend- 
ants, and  in  his  fall  fell  his  posterity  in  a  far 
deeper  sense  than  that  of  any  dogmatic  impu- 
tation. The  slender  thread  of  a  constructive 
transgression  is  a  figment  compared  with  that 
element  of  uneradicable  depravity  which 
entered  the  race  that  lay  folded  up  in  Adtwu 
when  the  devil  met  him.  This  princii>le  has 
alsoeminentapplicability  to  Abraham,  because 
he  was  specially  constituted  the  head  of  a 
peculiar  race.  He  had  the  promises,  and  in 
him  lay  enfolded  the  destinies  of  the  world. 
Nor  would  it  in  this  case,  I  think,  as  it  would 
in  the  case  of  Adam,  have  made  a  difference 
had  Isaac  already  been  born.  The  ancestor  of 
the  race  stood  for  his  posterity'.  As  to  the 
application  of  this  principle  to  our  Lord, 
we  mus^  remember  tluit  his  entnince  into 
the  Jewish  race,  as  well  as  his  whole  per- 
sonality, was  extraordinary  and  miraculous. 
Before  Abraham  he  was;  and  as  Alford  justly 


'  The  balancing  of  clauses  so  familiar  to  classic  Greek,  ii-^v  and  5e,  is  more  constant  with  our  author  than  with 
any  other  New  Testament  writer. 

*  iAt  and  €«€»  partly  temporal,  partly  logical. 


90 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


11  If  therefore  perfection  were  by  the  Levitical  priest- 
liood,  (for  iiiuler  it  tlie  people  received  the  law,)  what 
further  need  icas  there  that  anotlier  priest  should  rise 
after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  and  not  be  called  after 
the  order  of  Aaron  ? 

12  For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made 
of  necessity  a  change  also  of  tlie  law. 

13  For  he  of  whom  these  things  are  spoken  pertaineth 


11  Now  if  there  was  perfection  through  the  Levitical 
priesthood  (for  under  it  hath  the  people  received  the 
law),  what  lurther  need  was  Ikere  that  another  priest 
should  arise  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  and  not 

12  be  reckoned  alter  the  order  of  Aaron?  For  the 
priesthood  being  changetl,  there  is  made  of  neces- 

13  sity  a  change  also  'of  the  law.  For  he  of  whom 
these  things  are  sai<l  ^belongeth   to  another  tribe, 


Or,  of  laio -  Gr.  hath  partaken  of.     See  cli.  ii.  11. 


says,  "  was  never  in  the  loins  of  an  earthly 
father."  On  his  mother's  side  he  was  the  Son 
of  man ;  on  his  father's  side  he  was,  like  Adam, 

the  Son  of  God.       (Lute  S  :  38.) 

(c)  Application  of  tliese  facts  in  regard  to 
Melchisedec  to  the  subject.  The  introduction 
of  a  new  priesthood  ini plies  the  failure  of  the 
Levitical,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  law  for 
which  it  stood  responsible.     (11,  12.) 

Thus  far  the  author  has  dealt  with  the  per- 
sonal and  priestly  character  of  Melchisedec; 
not  a  word  as  yet  respecting  the  priesthood 
and  the  law  and  covenant  with  which  it  stands 
connected.  Tiiat  point  is  disposed  of  in  the 
next  verse  and  needs  afterward  to  be  but  inci- 
dentally touched  by  way  of  contrast  in  some 
of  those  things  in  which  it  is  inferior  to  the 
Melchisedec  priesthood  of  the  Lord.  Ver.  11 
may  be  regarded  as  a  common  introduction  to 
the  entire  following  passage  to  ver.  25,  though 
its  more  special  relation  is  to  the  first  of  the 
four  points  which  it  includes. 

11.  If  therefore  perfection,  etc. — If  in- 
deed cotnplet'iony  accomplishment,  tons  through 
the  Levitical  2^  r  lest  hood  (for  vpon  its  basis  the 
people  have  received  the  law),  what  further 
need  was  there  that  a  different  jyriest  should 
arise,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  and  not 
be  reckoned  after  the  order  of  Aaron  ?  Here, 
first,  it  is  evident  that  tlie  question,  '  what  fur- 
ther need,'  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  any  fur- 
ther need.  The  question  is  an  emphatic  nega- 
tive affirmation.  Secondly,  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  construction  be  '  if  perfection  was, 
what  need  was  there?'  or  (with  suppressed  av 
in  the  apodosis,  xi?  olv  xpeia),  "what  need  would 
there  bej?  "  Either  mode  of  denial  is  equally 
decisive,  though  in  a  slightly  ditferent  way : 
"  If  it  w;rts  so,  then  there  was  no  need;"  "if 
it  were,  or  had  been  so,  there  would  have  been 
no  need."  Thirdly,  we  have  the  decisive  ar- 
gument for  the  inadequacy  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood  ;  namely,  the  divine  act  appointing 
another  priest  of  a  different  order.  When  the 
Ascended  Son  enters  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
and  is  greeted  with  the  words,  "Thou  art  a 


priest  after  tlie  order  of  Melchisedec,''  there 
is  an  unceremonious  setting  aside  of  the  priest- 
hood of  Aaron,  as  stamped  with  the  seal  of 
incompetency.  There  is  no  occasion  to  reason 
further;  tiio  'what  need'  of  the  passage  is 
decisive.  And,  fourthly,  along  with  the  Le- 
vitical priesthood,  goes  the  Levitical  law. 

12.  For  the  priesthood  being  changed, 
there  is  made  {takes place)  of  necessity  a 
change  also  of  the  law — the  whole  ritual 
system  of  Judaism ;  the  covenant,  of  which 
that  priesthood  was  the  minister  and  guaran- 
tee. On  the  basis  of  tiiis  priesthood,  the  peo- 
ple had  received  the  law,  and  this  had  boon 
made  answerable  to  God  for  its  efficiency. 
Had  it  fulfilled  this  end;  had  there  been 
tlirough  it  accoynp lishment  {rektiuai.^'),  it  would 
have  stood.  Being  found  impotent  for  this,  it 
must  be  set  aside,  and  with  it  the  whole  sys- 
tem which  rested  upon  it,  and  for  which  it  was 
answerable.  "We  see,  then,  how  significant, 
how  revolutionary  in  the  whole  sj'stem  of  Ju- 
daism, this  removal  of  the  priesthood.  Fi- 
nally, the  '  if  indeed,  now '  (ei  /mec  ovv)  of  ver. 
11  implies  that  tiie  author  had  in  mind  an 
alternative  to  his  supposition.  This,  if  ex- 
pressed, would  have  been,  "but  if  there  was 
not  acco^nplishment  (rfAeioxni),  then  there  was 
need,"  etc.;  but, this  apodosis  of  his  sentence 
is  suppressed  as  unnecessary,  and  ver.  12  pro- 
ceeds, as  we  have  seen,  to  sttite  the  result  of 
the  change  of  tlie  priesthood  in  an  abrogation 
of  the  law.  This  verse  (not  a  mere  parenthet- 
ical statement,  as  De  Wette)  is  now  illustrated 
in  the  following  verses,  showing  the  nature 
and  wide-reaching  extent  of  this  change.  It 
is  first  a  tribal  change,  which,  removing  the 
priesthood  from  the  tribe  of  Levi,  would  of 
course  do  away  with  all  peculiarly  Levitical 
arrangements  (ver.  is,  u);  and  next,  what  is  in- 
comparably more  important,  it  is  a  cliange  in 
internal  character  and  vital  efficacy,     (isis.) 

(rf)  This  change  in  the  law  shown  histori- 
cally in  the  change  of  the  priestly  tribe. 
(13,  14.) 

13.  For  he  of  whom  these  things  are 


Ch.  VIL] 


HEBREWS. 


91 


to  another  tribe,  of  which  no  man  gave  attendance  at 
the  altar. 

14  For  it  Li  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Juda ; 
of  which  tribe  Moses  si)ake  uothiug  concerning  priest- 
hood. 

15  And  it  is  yet  far  more  evident:  for  that  after 
the  similitude  of  Melcbisedec  there  ariseth  another 
priest, 

16  Who  is  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  com- 
luanduient,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life. 


from  which  no  man  hath  given  attendance  at  tha 

14  altar.  For  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  hath  sprung 
out  of  Judah;  as  to  which  tribe  Moses  spake  notliiii^' 

15  concerning  priests.  And  tcha'  wf  xay  is  yet  more 
abundantly  evident,  if  alter  the  likeness  of  Mel- 

16  chizedek  there  ariseth  another  priest,  who  h;itli 
been  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  com. 
uiandment,  but  after  the  power  of  an  >  endless  life: 


1  Gr.  indissoluble. 


spoken  (said) — he  who  is  the  subject  of  this 
extraordinary  hingiiage,  "Thou  art  a  priest," 
etc. ;  the  author  proceeds  to  illustrate  the 
prophecy  by  an  appeal  to  historical  fact.  Per- 
taineth  (belongeth)  to  another  tribe  from 
which  no  man  gave  {hath  (jiven)  attend- 
ance at  the  altar.  Of  course,  making  no 
account  of  possible  irregularities,  and  infrac- 
tions of  the  law. 

14.  For  it  is  evident  {open  to  the  day; 
irpoSijAof,  conspicuously  manifest)  that  our 
liord  sprang  {hath  sprung)  out  of  Juda.' 
Of  which,  etc.,  or,  as  to  lohich  tribe  Moses 
spake  nothing  concerning  priests — a  softened 
expression  to  denote  the  fact  that  every  tribe 
but  that  of  Levi  was  rigorously  excluded  from 
the  priesthood.  These  historical  statements 
establish,  of  course,  the  actual  transfer  of  the 
priesthood,  which  of  itself  would  nullify  the 
main  features  of  the  ritual  law,  and  break  up 
the  outward  economy  of  Judaism,  But  the 
change  is  much  more  radical;  it  goes,  as  the 
author  proceeds  to  show,  to  the  inner  and 
essential  character  of  the  priesthood. 

(e)  The  change  is  shown  more  clearly  in  the 
intrinsic  character  of  the  new  priesthood, 
which  is  constituted  not  after  a  carnal  ritual, 
but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life.    (15-19.) 

15.  And  it  is  yet  far  more  evident — not 
with  Delitzsch,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood  is 
imperfect;  this  is  understood,  and  is  not  now 
in  question  ;  nor  as  Ebrard,  absurdly,  that  our 
Lord  sprang  from  Judah;  the  original  word 
here  (Kara&iiKov)  is  no  correlative  of  that  in  ver. 
14  (jrpdSijAof)  ;  the  verbal  coincidence  is  merely 
accidental:  but  (as  substantially  Bleek,  Liine- 
mann,  Alford,  though  scarcely  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  author)  that  there  has  become  a 
change  in  the  law;  that  the  old  Levitical 
ritual,  for  which  the  Levitical  priests  stood 
sponsors,    has  been  swept  away  by  the  new 


Melchisedec  priesthood  of  Christ,  and  a  law 
of  totally  different  character  and  infinitely 
higher  efficiency  has  come  in  its  stead.  Here, 
in  fact,  is  the  vital,  the  turning  point,  of  the 
whole  matter.  For  that,  strictly,  i/,  equiva- 
lent to  in  that  (the  'if  expressing  simply  con- 
dition, not  doubt)  after  the  likejiess  of  Mel- 
chisedec ariseth  a  different  priest.  It  was  a 
small  thing  that  the  priesthood  passed  from  one 
tribe  to  another.  For  weightier  is  thecharacter 
of  the  new  priest,  indicated  by  the  words  'after 
the  likeness  of  Melchisedec,'  on  which  word 
rests  the  emphasis,  the  word  'likeness'  being 
now  substituted  for  'order,'  to  bring  out  the 
resemblance  of  Christ's  priesthood  to  that  of 
him  who,  on  the  sacred  page  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  an  extraordinary  reticence,  in  the 
New  by  profound  and  careful  interpretation, 
is  exhibited  as  living.  Here,  also,  as  in  ver. 
11,  we  have  the  original  word  (crtpos),  mean- 
ing qualitatively  different,  rather  than  that 
word,  signifying  numerically  ««o^Ae;'  (oAAos), 
as  marking  a  change  in  the  kind,  as  well  as 
the  personnel,  of  the  i)riestl3'  office. 

16.  Who  is  (hath  been)  made,  not  after 
the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but 
after  the  power  of  an  endless  [indissol- 
uble, inipeivshable)  life.  The  two  clauses  are 
carefully  balanced  against  each  other,  'law' 
answering  to  'power'  and  'carnal  command- 
ment' to  'imperishable,  indissoluble,  indestruc- 
tible life.'  This  favors  our  taking  "  law"  (with 
Chrysostom)  for  statute  law,  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  thus  explaining  "a  law  wliich  consists  in  a 
fieshly  ordinance."  Otherwise,  it  seems  more 
natural  to  interpret  "law,"  as  in  Rom.  7  :  21, 
as  rule,  nortn,  regulative  principle,  and  stand- 
ing with'^ut  emphasis.  (So  Bleek,  Liinemann, 
Alford,  Moll.)  The  substantial  sense  of  the 
clause  remains  unaflTected.  The  contrast  lies 
essentially  in  this:  the  Levitical  priesthood  is 


'\uareTa\K(v,  either  has  arisen,  as  the  sun  (ivarokai; 
the    sunrisinffx,  Ihe  east,  Mark   16  :  2),   or  has  arisen, 


by  Num.  24  :  17  ;  Mai.  4:2:  Lsa.  60 ;    the  latter  hy  Isa- 
44  :  4  ;  Ezek.  17  :  6.    The  word  has  both  meanings  iu  the 


sprung  up,  as  a  plant.    The  former  might  be  indicated  {  classics. 


92 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


17  For  he  te.-lifieth.  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after 
the  order  of  Melchisedec. 

l.S  For  there  is  verily  a  disannulling  of  the  couiniand- 
luent  going  before  for  the  weakness  and  unprofitable- 
uess  thereof. 

I'J  For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect,  but  the  bring- 
ing in  of  a  better  hope  did;  by  the  which  we  draw  nigh 
unto  God. 


17  for  it  is  witnessed  o/  him. 

Thou  art  a  priesl  for  ever 
After  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

18  For  there  is  a  disannulling  of  a  foregoing  conimand- 
ment  because  of  its  weakness  and  uni)rotitableuess 

19  (for  the  law  made  nothing  perfect),  and  a  bringing 
in  thereupon  of  a  better  hope,  tlirough  which  we 


constituted  by  special,  formal,  as  it  were, 
arbitrary  enactment,  committed  to  fleshly, 
dying  men,  and  bound  to  all  the  conditions  of 
human  imperfection  and  mortality  ((ripjcti/os, 
fieshen^  made  of  flesh).  Christ's  priesthood,  on 
the  other  hand,  modeled  after  that  of  one  who 
lives,  is  by  virtue  of  an  inherent  vital  energy 
in  him  who  bears  it,  and  who,  not  as  a  mem- 
ber of  a  tribe,  but  in  the  unity  of  his  own  per- 
son, bears  it  forever.  The  'indestructible 
life'  may  (with  Alford,  Delitzsch)  be  re- 
garded as  commencing  strictly  after  his  resur- 
rection, when  "death  had  no  more  dominion 
over  him"  ;  but  the  'power'  of  that  imperish- 
able life  was  with  him  from  the  dawn  of  his 
humanity,  empowering  him  to  lay  down  his 
life  and  to  take  ii  again,  and  triumphing  in 
his  resurrection.  In  illustrative  confirmation 
of  this,  the  author  again  cites  passingly  and 
parenthetically  the  oft-quoted  passage  from 
the  Psalm. 

17.  For  he  testifieth  (or,  it  is  testified), 
Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedec,  with  special  emphasis  on 
the  'forever.' 

18,  19.  These  verses  state  now,  in  plainest 
and  most  decisive  terms,  the  full  consequences 
of  this  change  of  priesthood;  we  have  in  it 
the  critical  and  hinging  point  of  the  whole 
chapter.  Priesthood  and  law,  impotent  and 
inoperative,  are  swept  away  together,  and 
replaced  by  a  better  hope,  that  brings  the 
spiritual  alien  near  to  God.  For  there  is 
{becometh)  a  disannulling  (abrogation,  ide- 
n)<rit,  stronger  than  the  gentle /u-cTafleo-is,  change, 
of  ver.  \2)  of  a  foregoing  commandment  (the 
participle,  »rp<7ayov<TTn,  takes  the  place  of  the 
article) — not  merely  the  law  of  the  priesthood, 
but  the  whole  Mosaic  ritual,  that  was  based 
upon  it — because  of  its  weakness  and  unprofit- 
ableness  (the adjective,  according  to  Delitzsch, 
being  a  milder  form  than  the  noun,  which 
would  have  charged  weakness  and  inefl^ciency 
rather  on  its  essential  nature  than  its  ad- 
juncts.) Forthe  law  made  nothing  perfect 
(hroiight  notldng  to  perfection,  accotnplish- 
ment).      This    is   thrown   in   parenthetically, 


as  justifying  the  abrogation  of  the  old  sys- 
tem. 'Law'  is  now  used  as  covering  the 
whole  Mosaic  economj',  not  only  the  rit- 
ual, but  the  moral  law,  between  which  the 
Jew  made  no  sharp  distinction.  If  we  can 
distinguish  them — the  moral  law  required 
perfection,  but  had  no  power  to  produce  it; 
the  ceremonial  law  symbolized  perfection,  but 
had  no  power  to  turn  its  shadows  into  sub- 
stance. The  moral  law  was  impotent  on  account 
of  the  carnal  natures  that  received  its  com- 
mands; the  ceremonial  law  was  impotent  on 
account  of  the  carnal  elements  of  which  it 
consisted.  The  apostle,  in  Rom.  8:3,  in  his 
"impossible  for  the  law  in  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh,"  refers  to  the  former  of 
these  grounds  of  impotence,  the  perverseness 
of  the  nature  with  which  it  dealt.  But, 
etc. ;  and  a  bringing  in  thereupon  (eni,  there- 
upon, and,  if  the  case  requires  it,  in  its  place) 
of  a  better  hope.  ''A  hope,^  put  in  the  concrete 
as  the  substitute  for  those  impotent  elements 
that  produced  no  hope.  The  contrast  is  not 
that  of  a  better  or  mightier  hope  with  a  feebler 
one,  but  of  that  better  and  mightier  thing,  '  a 
hope''  (the  construction  is  elliptical)  with  the 
utter  hopelessness  that  environed  the  Old 
Economy.  The  Old  Economy  did  indeed, 
in  its  significant  symbols,  in  its  prophetic  fore- 
.shadowings,  involve  a  hope  for  the  anointed 
eye  that  could  discern  it.  But  this  is  not  now 
in  the  author's  mind,  but  what  these  were  or 
were  not  in  themselves.  The  New  Testament 
believer's  salvation  is  indeed  as  yet  but  in 
hope,  but  it  is  a  real  and  living  one,  and  one 
by  which  we  draw  nigh  unto  God — the 
very  crown  and  climax  of  the  whole  priestly 
work  of  Christ.  It  was  symbolized  in  the 
Jewish  high  priest's  entering  the  Holy  of 
Holies.  The  most  significant  and  remarkable 
event  attending  the  crucifi.xion  was  tlie  rend- 
ing of  the  vail  of  the  temple,  which  was  a 
standing  symbol  of  se^iarntion  frotn  God. 
Christ's  ascent  to  heaven,  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, was  into  the  presence  of  God  as  Fore- 
runner of  his  people. 

(/)  A  further  proof  of  the  superiority  of 


Ch.  VIL] 


HEBREWS. 


93 


20  And  inasmuch  hs  not  without  an  oath  he  was  made 
priest  : 

21  (For  those  priests  were  made  without  an  oath  ;  but 
this  with  an  oath  by  him  tliat  said  unto  him,  The  Lord 
sware  and  will  not  repent,  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever 
after  the  order  of  Melchisedec :) 

22  By  so  much  was  Jesus  made  a  surety  of  a  better 
testament. 

2:5  And  they  truly  were  many  priests,  because  they 
were  not  suffered  to  continue  by  reason  of  death: 

24  But  this  man,  because  he  coutinueih  ever,  hath 
an  unchangeable  priesthood. 


20  draw  nigh  unto  God.    And  inasmuch  as  it  is  not 

21  without  the  taking  of  an  oath  (for  they  indeed  have 
been  made  ]>rie.sts  without  an  uath;  but  he  with  an 
oatli  >  by  him  that  saith  -of  him. 

The  Lord  sware  and  will  not  repent  himself, 
Thou  an  a  priest  for  ever); 

22  by  so  much  also  hath  Jesus  become  the  surety  of  a 

23  better  covenant.  And  they  indeed  have  been  made 
j)riests  many  in  number, because  that  by  death  they 

24  are  hindered  from  contiiuiing:  but  he,  because  he 
abideih  for  ever,  »hath  his  priesthood  ^unchange- 


1  Or,  tkrougli i  Or,  unto :<  Or,  hath  a  priesthood  tliat  doth  not  pass  to  another 4  Or,  inviolable. 


the  Melchisedec  priesthood,  is  that  it  is  insti- 
tuted with  the  sanction  of  an  oath.     (20-22.) 

20.  And  inasmuch  as   not  without  {the 

taking  of)  an  oath  (opKco/ioffia,  a  word  of  more 
fullness  and  dignity  than  opKos)  [does  this  take 
2^lace — that  is,  the  appointing  of  the  Melchise- 
dec priest;  not,  the  bringing  in*  of  a  better 
hope]. 

21.  For  those  priests — For  they,  indeed, 
have  beeyt  made  xoitliout  the  swearing  of  an 
oath,  but  he  with  an  oath  by  him  that  saith  of 
him — (periphrastic  description  of  God,  as  2  : 
10).  The  Lord  sware  and  will  not  repent, 
Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever.' 

22.  By  so  much  also  was  Jesus  made 
(hath  Jesus  become  (the  surety  of  a  better 
testament  {covenant).  The  solemnity  of 
the  oath  with  which  this  priesthood  was  in- 
augurated is  the  measure  of  its  superiority  or 
excellence.  Of  course,  on  the  part  of  God, 
nothing  can  enhance  tlie  weight  of  his  prom- 
ise; the  oath  is  added  in  accommodation  to 
our  human  weakness  and  human  usages.  In 
the  original,  'Jesus'  is  emphatically  placed 
la.st,  as  if  to  gather  up  in  that  final  word  the 
substance  of  the  previous  less  individualized 
statements  regarding  the  New  Testament 
l)riesthood.  Here,  first  in  this  Epistle,  occurs 
the  word  covenant  (Stafln'") — primarily,  dispo- 
sition, arrangement)."^  The  Old  Testament 
Dispensation  is  properly  a  covenant,  a  mutual 
agreement  between  God  and  the  people.  The 
New  Testament  use  of  the  word  is  probably 
an  echo  from  the  Old,  a  rhetorical  transfer, 
without  special  appropriateness,  of  a  word 
which  had  become  familiar  to  the  Old  Econ- 
omy. The  New  Covenant  is  all  on  one  side — 
God  is  a  gracious  Giver,  and  his  people  grateful 


receivers  of  the  ine.stiniable  boon.  In  9  :  16, 
the  word  slides  over  into  testamejit ;  here  such 
a  rendering  seems  without  reason.  A  'surety 
belongs  rather  to  a  covenant  than  to  a  will. 
Of  this  better  covenant,  Jesus  is  surety,  not  as 
sealing  it  with  his  death  and  resurrection  (as 
Alford,  Liinemann),  for  these  created  it,  and 
could  scarcely,  tiierefore,  be  its  guarantee ; 
but  as  High  Prie.st  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
perpetual  and  unfailing,  in  emboldening  his 
people  to  draw  near  to  God,  assured  that  the 
throne  of  justice  has  become  a  throne  of 
grace.  He  is  surety,  not  to  God  on  behalf  of 
his  people,  but  to  them  on  behalf  of  God. 

{g)  Christ's  Melchisedec  priesthood,  unlike 
the  Levitical  succession,  is  a  single,  perpetual, 
everlasting  priesthood,  which  can  thus  carry 
through  to  completeness  its  work  of  salvation. 
(23-25.) 

23.  And  they  truly,  etc.  — And  they, 
indeed,  have  been  made  priests  many  in 
mim,ber ;  that  is,  not  many  contemporan- 
eously, but  in  succession,  one  after  another 
dying  and  leaving  his  oflSce  to  his  successor. 
The  Levitical  priesthood  contained,  indeed, 
a  plurality  of  members;  but  the  higJi,  priest, 
the  proper  prototype  of  our  Lord,  was  single. 
Because  they  were  not  suffered,  etc.,  or,  on 
account  of  their  being  hindered  by  death  fr.om 
abiding — that  is,  in  the  priesthood;  for  so  the 
language  must  be  supplemented.  Both  the 
compound  verb  {napay^ivtiv,  remain  with,  or, 
abide  with  or  beside),  demands  this ;  and  to  ex- 
plain it  absolutely,  of  abiding  in  life,  con- 
verts the  sentence  into  a  platitude,  'because 
they  are  hindered  by  death  from  abiding  in 
life.' 

24.  But  this   man    {he)  became,  etc. — 


'  "After  the  order  of  Melchisedec,"  of  the  received  I  covenant,  agreeraent ;  but  so,  commonly,  in  the  Seplua- 
text,  is  here  wanting  in  Codex  Siuaiticus  B  C  17  80,  and  i  gint  and  the  New  Testament  [Sta.  having  probably  there 
probably  not  genuine.  its  frequent  force  in  composition  of  marking  mutual 

-  The  word  6ia9r;ic7)  is,  in  the  classics,  testamentary  (lis-    relation,  as  UakiytaBoi,  to  convertewith). 
position,  will ;  and  there  rarely  equivaleot  to  «T»ffli)(ti>,  I 


94 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


25  Wherefore  he  is  able  also  to  save  them  to  the  utter-  ■  25  able.  Wherefore  also  he  is  able  to  save  i  to  the  ut- 
most that  coiue  unto  <jod  by  hiiu,  seeiug  he  ever  liveih  I  teriiiost  theui  that  draw  near  unto  IJod  tlimugb  bini, 
to  make  intercession  for  them.  I        seeing  he  ever  liveih  to  make  intercession  for  llieni. 

2(i  For  such  a  high  priest  became  us,  who  is  holy,  |  26      For  sucli  a  high  priest  became  us,  holy,  guileless, 


1  Gr.  completely. 


on  account  of  his  remaining  forever.  '  Re- 
maining.' not  in  the  jyriesthood,  but  abideth 
in  life.  The  verb  {y-ivnv^  by  no  means  equiva- 
lent to  napanevei.i'  in  ver.  23)  naturally  indicates 
tills,  and  the  same  law  of  connection  which 
there  demands  that  tlie  verb  denote  continu- 
ing in  the  priesthood  here  points  to  continuing 
in  life.  Tiiere,  there  are  numerous  priests, 
because  they  are  hindered  by  death  from  abid- 
ing in  their  priesthood;  here,  he,  because  he 
abides  ii\  life  forever,  hath  his  priesthood  un- 
changeable. The  adjective  (an-opa/Saros)  is  not 
witliout  difficulty.  If,  with  some  of  the  Greek 
commentators  (as  Theophylact),  we  could  ren- 
der it  actively.,  not  passing  by.,  not  transient,  all 
would  be  easy;  but  this  seems  scarcely  admis- 
sible. It  is  probably  better  taken  passively, 
and  then  to  be  rendered  either  ?io^  to  be  passed 
by,  hence,  not  to  be  superseded;  or  better,  as 
of  a  law  or  usage  (from  irapapaCvat),  to  go  aside 
from  or  beyo)id,  to  transgress,  violate,  not  to 
be  violated,  not  to  be  transgressed;  hence,  in- 
violable, unalterable.  In  either  way  we  come 
substantially  to  the  same  meaning.  The  con- 
sideration is  clearly  f)ne  of  great  force,  and 
presents  the  Mclohisedec  priesthood  of  the 
Son  in  forcible  contrast  to  the  imperfec- 
tions of  the  Jewish  Sacerdotal  order.  The 
priests  of  Israel  received  their  priesthood,  ex- 
ercised it,  and  died;  the  continuity  of  their 
service  was  perpetually  broken;  every  link 
was  stamped  with  frailty  and  mortality,  and 
the  whole  order  partook  of  the  frailty  of  its 
individual  numbers.  Such  a  priesthood  could 
accomplish  no  complete  salvation  ;  but  mark 
in  contrast  the  prerogative  of  his  priesthood 
who  liveth. 

25.  Wherefore  also — from  his  abiding  for- 
ever with  untransmissible  priesthood — he  is 
able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  {co7npletely) 
— thoroughly,  'to  the  uttermost,'  though  not 
exactly  in  the  sense  suggested  by  these  words 
in  the  Common  Version.  Them  that  come 
(draw  near)  unto  God  by  (through)  him. 
All  worship  is  essentially  a  drawing  near 
to  God.     The   priests  of   the  Old  Covenant 


sought  to  bring  the  worshij)ers  near  to  God, 
but  they  were  snatched  away  by  death  even 
from  their  partial  work  of  priestly  interces- 
sion. Seeing  (that)  he  ever  liveth  (while  or 
because  of  his  always  living)  to  make  (for  the 
purpose  of  making)  intercession  for  them 
(on  their  behalf).  The  ever  living  is  an  em- 
phatic iteration  of  the  abiding  forever.  The 
phrase  'to  make  intercession  for  them'  en- 
hances the  grace  of  Christ,  as  if  his  eternal  life 
were  for  the  benefit  of  his  people.  (Rom.8:34.) 
His  salvation,  then,  is  a  comi)lete  salvation. 
Through  his  perpetual  life  and  perpetual  priest- 
hood, he  can  carry  it  throiigh  to  the  uttermost. 
Perfected  himself,  he  can  bring  to  jierfection 
all  his  followers,  pardoning,  sanctifying,  justi- 
fying, glorifying. 

(h)  Exultant  summing  up  of  the  qualities  of 
Christ's  Melchisedec  priesthood,  necessary  to 
be  allied  with  those  of  the  Aaronical  high 
priest,  to  which  topic  verses  26-28  form  a 
transition. 

The  Melchi.sedec  priesthood  introduces  the 
elements  of  royalty  and  perjyetuity,  attributes 
of  the  ever  living  King.  The  Aaronic  priesthood 
must  add  the  element  of  e.vpiatory  sacrifice  for 
sin.  Without  this  the  Melchisedec  priesthood 
were  magnificent,  but  barreti.  Tlie  word  high 
]-)riest  introduced  at  ver.  26  shows  all  these 
majestic  priestly  qualities  uniting  themselves 
in  that  priesthood  which,  as  antitype  of  Aa- 
ron's, makes  effectual  offering  for  sin.  The 
priestly  successor  of  Melchisedec  appears  now 
as  the  high  priestly  counterpart  of  Aaron. 
The  saving  to  the  uttermost  imjilies  guilt  and 
condemnation,  from  which  there  can  be  no 
saving  without  expiation.  Here,  then,  slip- 
ping in,  as  it  were,  the  word  high  priest  (dp^ie- 
pfiii),  the  writer  shows  how  around  him  cluster 
the  afore-described  attributes,  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  express  consideration  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  element.  It  is  conceived,  as  De  Wette 
well  remarks,  in  a  strain  of  exultant  joy  over 
those  all-sufficient,  glorious  attributes  of  the 
great  High  Priest. 

2G.  For  such  a  high  priest  (also)  ^  be- 


'  The  '  also '  («*«')  is  wanting  in  the  Sioaitic  MS.,  but  appears  in  A  B  D  E,  and  is  forcible. 


Ch.  VII.] 


HEBREWS. 


95 


harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners,  and  made         iindefiled.  separated  from  sinners,  and  made  higher 
higher  than  the  heavens;  27  than  the  neavens;  who  neudeth  not  daily,  like  InuBe 


27  Who  needeth  not  daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer 
up  sacrifice,  tirst  lor  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  peo- 
ple's: for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up  himself. 


high  priests,  to  otter  up  sacrifices,  first  for  his  own 
sins  aud  then  for  the  sins  of  the  people;  for  this  he 


came  us,  holy,  harmless  (guileless),  unde-  |  immediate  and  absolute  presence  of  God,  and 
filed,  separate  {being,  having  been  separated)    thus  beyond  all  finite  and  creature  limitations. 


from  sinners,  and  made  (become)  higher 
than  the  heavens.  The  artistic  arrangement 
of  the  opening  words  cannot  be  reproduced  in 
English.  Tiio  elliptical  'for'  involves  the  sup- 
pressed idea  that  this  lay  in  the  nature  and 
demands  of  the  case.  'Such'  suggests  the 
priest  before  described,  whose  attributes  are 
here  little  more  than  gathered  up,  scarcely 
added  to.  '  Became  us ' — emphatic  in  position  ; 
befitted  us  as  sinners.  'Became  also' » — was  (in 
addition  to  its  being  a  fact)  also  befitting. 
And  finally,  'high  priest'  comes  out  unex- 
pectedly at  the  end  of  the  clause  (though  not 
without  atnplest  previous  preparation  in  the 
Epistle),  and  empahtically  merging  the  priest 
in  the  high  priest  (the  iepeus  in  the  apxifpfv^), 
and  enabling  the  author  to  unite  the  attributes 
of  both.  'Holy' — pious,  perfect  in  all  his  re- 
lations to  God  (o<rios),  positively  and  actively 
pious;  not  legally  sacred,  or  simply  sancti- 
fied (aytos).  'Thy  hol^'  one'  (iio-ios^,  Ps. 
16  :  10;  cited  of  Ciirist,  Acts  3  :  14.  '  Void  of 
eviV  (dKa<o?),  ivihout  evil,  denoting  his  charac- 
ter toward  men,  as  {6trio»)  pious,  toward  God. 
It  marks  freedom  from  guile,  enmity,  suspi- 
cion. ''Undefiled^  (d/xioi/Tot),  unstained.  The 
Levitical  high  priest  must  be  ceremonially' 
and  outwardly  without  stain ;  the  true  High 
Priest  must  be  internally  and  really  so,  and 
free,  not  only  from  internal  defilement,  but 
possible  contamination.  Hence,  separated 
from  sinners,  not  merely  from  sin;  withdrawn 
from  their  defi'ing  and  disturbing  contact  into 
the  heavenly  sanctuary,  where  neither  their 
violence,  nor  their  wickedness,  can  hinder  his 
priestly  work.  ''Become  higher  than  the  hea- 
vens'— here  an  animated  and  exulting  expres- 
sion of  the  transcendent  exultation  of  the  New 
Testament  High  Priest.  The  Levitical  high 
priest  was  ceremonially  clean,  and  withdrawn 
partially  from  sinners  into  the  earthly  sanc- 
tuary. His  great  Antitype  and  Successor  is 
absolutely  and  inwardly  pure,  completely 
withdrawn  from  the  disturbing  contact  of  sin- 
ners, exalted  above  the  very  heavens,  through 
which  he  has  passed  (< :  h;  Eph.  4:  lo)  into  the 


27.  This  verse  converges  the  attention  more 
on  the  Levitical  side  of  the  Lord's  priesthood; 
namely,  his  high  priesthood.  Who  needeth 
not,  etc. — hath  no  necessity  day  by  day,  just 
as  the  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifices  pre- 
viously for  his  own  sins,  and  afterward  for 
those  of  the  j^eople.  The  point  of  contrast  is 
here  really,  though  not  in  form,  twofold, 
Christ  has  not  need,  like  the  Levitical  priests, 
to  offer  sacrifices  for  his  own  sins  at  all;  for  he 
has  none;  nor  like  them  to  offer  sacrifices  for 
the  people  day  by  day,  or  repeatedly  ;  for  his 
one  offering  is  forever  sufficient.  But  in  the 
second  point  we  meet  a  difficulty.  The  expia- 
tory offerings  of  the  Levitical  high  priests  are 
manifestly  referred  to;  but  these  were  offered 
not  daily,  but  yearly.  The  solutions  are  vari- 
ous. Some  have  taken  the  original  phrase 
(icafl'  r)n«pav)  not  as  equivalent  to  daily,  but  'on 
an  appointed  day  in  the  year'  (Schlichting, 
Michaelis);  others  as  equivalent  to  SianavTOi, 
indicating  annual  repetition,  perpetually  re- 
curring (Grotius,  Bohme,  De  Wette,  Ebrard) ; 
others  as  qualifying  not  the  actual  ministra- 
tions of  the  priests,  but  the  supposed  ministra- 
tions of  Christ;  not  that  which  they  do,  but 
that  which  he  would  have  to  do,  provided  his 
sacrifice  required  repetition  at  all.  since  the 
same  principle  that  would  demand  its  re{)eti- 
tion  once  a  year  would  demand  it  every  day 
and  constantly  (so  Hofmann  and  formerly 
Dclitzsch)  ;  others  (as  Kurtz,  connecting  the 
KaB'  ritxipoLV  with  ex"  iv6.yK-i]v),  "  hath  daily  neces- 
sity," confine  its  reference  to  the  need,  which 
the  human  and  imperfect  Levitical  priest  is 
under,  on  account  of  his  daily  sinning,  t'» 
make  daily  offering  for  himself  Others  (as 
Bleek,  Tholuck,  Liinemann,  Moll)  "  suppose 
that  the  author,  with  his  mind  specially  on  the 
singleness  and  finality  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
has  in  Ivyose  and  inexact  expression  blended 
the  priestly  sacrifices  in  general  with  the  grand 
high  priestly  sacrifice  on  the  annually  recur- 
ring Day  of  Atonement."  This  becomes  the 
more  probable,  since  the  high  priest  was  em- 
powered to  take  part,  as  often  as  he  chose,  in  the 


'  Kai,  also,  is  found  in  A  B  D  E,  and  is  undoubtedly  genuine. 


96 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VII. 


28  For  the  law  maketh  men  high  priests  wliich  have 
infirmity;  but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  since 
the  law,  makel/i  the  Son,  who  is  consecrated  for  ever- 
more. 


28  did  once  for  all,  when  he  offered  up  himself.  For 
the  law  a])poiiiteth  men  high  priests,  having  in- 
tiriuiiy;  but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  alter 
the  law,  appoinlelh  a  Son,  perfected  for  evermore. 


daily  burnt  offering,  and  not  unfrequently  ex- 
ercised this  privilege,  particularly  on  Sabbath.s, 
new  moons,  and  festal  occasions  (Josepbus, 
"Jewish  War,"  V.  5,  6),  and  also  in  the  daily 
incen.se  offerings  to  whicb  was  ascribed  an 
atoning  significance.  (Lev.  n:  u,  12;  Num.  33: 10, 
Lxx.)  But  the  priest's  successive  offerings  for 
liimself  and  the  people  have  probably  special 
reference  to  the  great  Day  of  Atonement.  Of 
the  above  explanations  the  last  seems  far  the 
more  probable ;  mostof  them.  I  think,  may  be 
at  once  set  aside.  For  this  he  did  once  (for 
all)\vhen  he  offered  {hiofferi7ig)up  himself. 
His  single  sacrifice  in  pouring  out  his  life  on  the 
cross  was  the  substance  of  all  the  repeated  S3'm- 
bolical  sacrifices  of  the  ancient  priesthood.^  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  author  only  glances 
here  and  there  (as  1:3;  5:7,  and  here)  at 
Christ  as  a  sacrifice  on  the  cross.  This  he  takes 
for  granted,  but  loves  to  contemplate  rather  his 
priestly  life  in  heaven.  Not  Christ  the  victim, 
but  Christ  the  priest,  is  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion. 

28.  For  the  law — the  Mosaic  ordinances — 
maketh  {constituteth)  men — emphasis  on 
men :  Christ,  though  on  earth  a  man,  was 
even  then  something  more  than  man;  now 
his  humanity  is  gloriously  overdrawn  by  his 
divinity,  the  Son  of  man  almost  swallowed 
up  in  the  Son  of  God— high  priests  which 
have  {having)  infirmity.  Christ  on  earth, 
indeed,  was  encompassed  with  infirmity;  he 
knew  the  weakness  of  humanity  that  he  might 
sympathize  with  bis  brethren.  But  'infirm- 
ity,' in  its  fullest  sense,  be  never  knew;  and 
now,  in  his  glorified,  high-priestly  state,  the 
infirmities  of  his  earthly  condition,  his  liaT)ility 
to  temptation  and  suffering  and  death,  are  all 
removed.  But  the  word  of  the  oath,  which 
was  since  {after)  the  law  (which  succeeded 
to  it  and  set  it  aside)  constituteth  the  Son — 
having  been  perfected  for  evermore.  Here 
once  more  we  have  the  contrast  between  the 
priesthood  of  the  law  and  the  priesthood  of 
the  oath.  The  one  constitutes  men,  the  other 
constitutes  the  Son  (the  article  omitted  for  the 
same  reason  as  in  1  :  1  to  emphasize  not  the 


person  but  the  character).  The  one  appointed 
men  having  infirmity,  actually  possessing  and 
wearing  it  as  a  garment;  the  other  the  Son, 
now  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  freed 
from  all  temporary  infirmity,  and  perfected 
forever,  thus  taking  up  into  his  glorious  Mel- 
chisedec  priesthood  all  the  functions  of  the 
Levitical,  and  qualified  to  accomplish  what 
that  could  only  symbolize. 


Ch.  8.  (4)  The  efficient  Aaronicnl  high 
priesthood  of  Christ  in  the  heavenly  sanc- 
tuary.    (8:  l-]0:  18.) 

The  author  now  passes  formally  from  Christ's 
Melchisedec  to  his  Aaronic  priesthood,  to  that 
element  of  it  which  adapts  it  to  sinners.  The  dis- 
cussion extends  to  10  :  18,  and  revolves  mainly 
around  one  central  idea,  that  of  Christ  offering 
in  the  heavenly  tabernacle  his  own  efficacious 
blood  as  a  counterpart  to  the  earthly'  high  priest 
offering  in  the  earthly  tabernacle  the  blood  of 
goats  and  heifers,  which  cannot  take  away  sin. 
Every  other  topic,  I  think,  will  be  found  sub- 
ordinate to  this,  and  will  derive  its  light  from 
this  central  idea.  It  divides  itself  into  two 
parts.  From  8:1  to  9  :  11  the  main  thought 
is  that  Christ  has  entered  as  High  Priest  into 
the  heavenly  sanctuary  with  his  own  expiatory 
blood.  From  9  :  11  to  10  ;  18  the  main  thought 
is  that  the  offering  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  un- 
like the  symbolical  and  oft-repeated  offerings 
of  the  earthly  priests,  is  efficacious,  final,  and 
forever.     Let  us  analyze  from  8  :  1  to  9  :  11. 

(a)  As  a  royal  Melchisedec  Priest,  Christ 
has  taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  as  Levitical  High  Priest  he  has  gone  into 
the  heavenly  tabernacle.     (1,  2.) 

(b)  As  suth  a  High  Priest,  Christ  must  of 
necessity  have  s  «mething  to  offer.     (3.) 

(c)  So  vitally  connected  are  these  two,  the 
priesthood  and  the  offering,  that  oti  earth 
there  would  be  no  place  for  his  priesthood,  as 
there  exist  already  there  those  who  make  the 
offerings  of  the  law,  and  whose  prerogatives 
are  inviolate.     (4.) 

((/)  But,  in  fact,  he  is  a  Higb  Priest,  and 
can,  therefore,  make  offerings,  because  he  has 


iava4>tpei.v  is  used  of  offering  up  himself  on  the  cross;  npo<T<l>ipeiv,  of  bringing  his  blood  as  an  offering 
into  the  sanctuary. 


Ch.  VIIL] 


HEBREWS. 


97 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


"VrOW  of  the  things  which  we  have  spoken  this  f.i 
i.1  the  sum  :  We  have  such  a  high  priest,  who  is  set 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  the  Majesty  in  tlie 
heavens ;  • 


1  1  Now  -in  the  things  which  we  are  saying  the 
chief  point  is  this:  We  liave  such  a  high  prie.st, 
who  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 


1  Or,  Now  to  <ufn  up  what  we  are  taying:   We  Aave,  etc 2  Gr.  upon. 


the  true  tabernacle  and  the  true  priesthood,  of 
which  theirs  were  but  a  shadow,  and  a  priest- 
hood as  much  better  than  theirs  as  is  the  cove- 
nant, of  which  he  is  the  Mediator,  better  than 
theirs.     (5,  6.) 

(e)  For  that  it  is  better  than  the  first  (this 
subordinately  and  in  passing)  is  clear  from  its 
having  superseded  it.  For  God,  having  found 
the  first  inefficacious,  replaces  it  by  a  new,  and 
the  former  one  becomes  antiquated  and  expires. 
(7-13.) 

(/)  But  that  First  Covenant  (for  to  see  how 
the  New  is  organized,  we  must  look  back  to. 
that,  its  copy;  and  to  see  what  the  new  High 
Priest  must  oifer,  we  mu.st  look  back  and  see 
what  the  old  one  oflered)  had  its  ordinances  of 
service,  and  its  sanctuary  consisting  of  two 
tabernacles,  an  outer  or  more  common,  and  an 
inner  and  holier  one.     (9  :  1-6.) 

ig)  Now  in  the  outer  sanctuary  the  priests 
performed  constant  ministrations,  but  into  this 
inner  sanctuarj^  the  high  priest  went  alone  once 
a  year,  not  without  blood — he  carried  in  there 
the  blood  of  slaughtered  victims,  symbolically, 
though  not  really,  expiatory  of  sin.     (6-10.) 

(h)  We  see,  then,  what  is  demanded  of  our 
High  Priest.  It  is  blood.  And  as  his  is  the 
true,  and  not  the  symbolical  priesthood,  as  he 
is  in  the  genuine,  and  not  the  copied  sanctuary, 
he  must  offer  blood  that  is  reall^',  and  not 
symbolically,  cleansing.  He  brings  his  ow7i. 
(11-14.) 

Thus  the  author  has  advanced,  by  an  almost 
straight  line  and  with  a  steady  step,  to  his 
object.  If  he  has  apparently  deviated,  it  was 
but  apparently.  Verses  7-13  of  chapter  8  are 
merely  an  incidental  (incidental  to  the  present 
aj'gument, though  vital  as  a  part  of  the  en  tire  dis- 
cussion) carrying  out  of  the  reason  why  Christ 
can  be  a  High  Priest;  namel^^  that  he  has  the 
true  priesthood  of  the  New  Covenant  by  which 
the  former  has  been  superseded  on  account  of 
its  inadequacy.  So  9  :  1-10  is  a  provisional 
examination  of  such  features  of  that  Old  Cove-. 


nant  as  bear  directly  on  the  high  priest's  func- 
tion, in  order  to  deduce  thenre  the  functions 
of  the  High  Priest  of  the  New  Covenant  in  the 
true  tabernacle,  and  especially  to  asiertain 
what  it  is  that  he  must  offer.  Then  9  :  11-14, 
15-28,  declaring  the  cleansing  efficacy  of  his 
blood,  closes  the  second  topic  propounded  in 
the  author's  brief  triple  thesis  (6:20),  'After  the 
order  of  Melchisedec,'  '  high  priest,'  'forever.' 
The  third,  embraced  in  the  emphatic  term 
'foreve?;'  though  certainly  all  along  implied 
in  every  feature  of  Christ's  work,  may  perhaps 
(with  Delitzsch)  be  regarded  as  forming  the 
special  keynote  to  10  :  1-18,  where  the  formal 
discussion  closes. 

(ff)  As  a  royal  Melchisedec  Priest,  Chri.st 
has  taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  as  Levitical  High  Priest,  he  has  gone  into 
the  heavenly  tabernacle.     (1-3.) 

1.  Now  of  the  things,  etc.— And  as  a 
capital  point  hi  regard  to  what  we  are  say- 
ing (literally,  in  regard  to  what  is  being 
said;  equivalent  to,  the  topic  under  discussion). 
'  Chief,  leading,  capital  point'  (Kf<i>dKcuov)  is  here 
far  better  than  the  other  meaning,  'sum,'  or 
'summing  up,'  as  in  the  Common  Version. 
This  latter  meaning,  indeed,  would  not  be 
wholly  inappropriate,  inasmuch  as  verses  1,  2 
look  both  backward  and  forward,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  exhibiting  sub.stantially  the  whole 
doctrine  of  Christ's  priesthood— ver.  1  in  its 
Melchisedec,  ver.  2  in  its  Levitical  aspect. 
This,  however,  is  equally  embraced  in  the 
rendering,  'chief  or  capital  point,'  which  is 
apparently  what  the  author  would  express. 
We  have  such  a  high  priest — thati.s,  'such' 
as  I  am  about  to  describe  ;  '  such  '  (toioOto?)  here 
looking  forward,  as  at  7  :  26  it  looks  back — 
who  is  set  {took  his  seat)  on  the  right 
hand  of  *he  throne  of  the  Majesty  in  the 
heavens.  Identical  in  meaning  with  1  :  3, 
but  intentionally  more  full  and  formal  in  ex- 
pression. There  it  is  stated  incidentally  as  a 
fact;  here  it  is  laid  down  formally  as  a  signifi- 


'  A  summary  of '  the  things  which  we //nresaid,'  would  j  can  it  be  rendered,  as  hy  some, '  In  addition  to  what  has 
require  inl  toU  tiprmtvoit,  not  rolt  Aeyoftcfot;.  Still  less,  Ibeen  said  '   (irpos  roij  tipriiitvoit) . 

G 


98 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


2  A  minister  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of  tlie  true  taber- 
nacle, which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man. 

a  For  every  high  priest  is  ordained  to  oti'er  gifts  and 
sacrifices:  wheretore  it  is  of  necessity  that  this  man 
have  somewhat  also  to  offer. 


2  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens,  a  minister  of  '  the  sanc- 
tuary, and  of  the  true  tabernacle,  which  the  Lord 

3  pitched,  not  man.  For  every  high  priest  is  ap- 
pointed to  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  wherefore 
it  is  necessary  that  tliis  h^g^  priest  also  have  some- 


1  Or,  holy  thing: 


cant  and  vital  fact  connected  with  the  priest- 
hood of  our  Lord.  It  is  the  more  literal 
statement  of  that  which  is  put  more  figur- 
atively, and  with  reference  to  Christ's  anti- 
Levitical  priesthood,  in  the  following  vi-rse. 

2.  A  minister — (Aeuoupyos),  public  sei-vant, 
or,  functionary  ;  in  the  classics,  the  bearer  of 
a  public  office  ;  in  the  Septuagint,  sometimes, 
"one  vcnAevrng  priestly  service,"  '  a  priest  to 
render  offerings,'  Neh.  10:  39,  so  Rom.  15: 16; 
and  here  the  term  is  so  applied  to  Clirist — of 
the  sanctuary  and  of  the  true  {genuine) 
tabernacle,  which  the  Lord  pitched,  and 
not  (f/)  man.  'The  sanctuary'  here  clearlj' 
denotes  the  'holy  of  holies,'  'the  part  within 
the  vail,'  in  which,  in  the  earthly  tabernacle, 
was  the  special  symbol  of  God's  presence,  and 
which,  therefore,  in  the  archet^'pal,  the  heav- 
enly tabernacle,  denotes  that  immediate  pres- 
ence itself.  As  King,  Christ  sits  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  throne  of  God  ;  as  Priest,  he 
ministers  in  the  heavenly  holy  of  holies,  in 
the  perpetual  presence  of  God.  Both  expres- 
sions are  mere  figures  drawn  from  earthly 
objects.  His  sharing  God's  throne  denotes, 
symbolically,  his  sharing  God's  -sovereign 
power;  his  being  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary 
denotes  his  being  in  the  immediate  and  abso- 
lute, not  the  symbolical,  presence  of  God.  He 
ministers  there,  not  as  occasionally  entering, 
but  perpetually  abiding.  '  The  genuine  inber- 
nacle,'  the  real,  original,  archetypal  tabernacle 
(not  aATjS^s,  true,  not  false ;  but  aATjeii-o?,  made 
of  truth,  real,  genuine,  not  counterfeit,  and 
not  a  copy).  God  is  the  '  tr\ie  God'  {k\t\6\.v6<;), 
in  contrast  with  spurious  gods,  idols;  God  is 
true  (iATjS^s)  as  a  Being  who  will  not  utter 
falsehood.  The  upper  sanctuary  was  the  ar- 
chetypal sanctuarj',  of  which  the  earthlj'  one 
was  but  a  copy,  as  Chri.st  was  the  true  Priest 
whom  the  earthly  priest  but  typified.  The 
words  'true,  genuine  tabernacle'  are  here 
exegetical  of 'sanctuary.'  The  Mosaic  taber- 
nacle was  divided  into  two  parts — the  outer 
tabernacle,  and  the  inner  sanctuary ;  but  the 
whole  went  under  the  general  name  of  taber- 
nacle; and  as  it  would  be  contrary  to  all 
propriety  to  represent  our  Lord  as  ministering 


in  the  outer  tabernacle,  the  word  can  be  taken 
here  only  in  its  general  sense,  and  all  specula- 
tions as  to  what  in  the  heavenly  tabernacle 
corresponded  to  the  first,  or  outer  one  of  the 
earthly,  are  here,  at  least,  entirely  out  of 
place.  Only  an  artificial  exegesis  can  find 
here  any  allusion  to  that  first  tabernacle,  and, 
therefore,  to  any  of  the  numerous  objects 
which  it  has  been  distorted  into  symbolizing. 
Christ  appears  ministering  in  the  true  taber- 
nacle, not  the  copy;  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
not  the  earthly;  dwelling  perpetually  in  the 
real  presence  of  God,  instead  of  entering  at 
distant  intervals  into  his  s^-mboHcal  presence. 
The  tabernacle  which  a  man  pitched  is  the 
material,  visible  tabernacle  of  Moses.  That 
which  the  Lord  pitched  is  the  invisible,  hea- 
venly tabernacle.  Like  all  the  elements  of 
the  New  Dispensation  (see  12  :  1&-27),  it  is 
purely  spiritual. 

(h)  As  such  a  High  Priest,  Christ  must  of 
necessity  have  something  to  offer.     (3.) 

3.  For  every  high  priest  is  ordained 
(appointed)  to  offer  [both']  gifts  and  sacri- 
fices: wherefore  it  is  of  necessity  that  also 
this  (high  priest,  or,  this  one)  have  some- 
what also  to  offer  (literally,  something 
which  he  m.ny  offer).  The  '  For'  is  proleptic: 
the  thought  outruns  the  expression.  The 
writer's  mind  is  filled  with  the  idea  that 
Christ  is  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  to  make 
a  high  priestly  offering.  The  'for'  responds 
to  and  generalizes  this  latent  thought,  'For 
every  high  priest  is  constituted  to  offer  gifts,' 
etc. ;  and  then,  having  generalized  the  idea 
from  the  special  case  in  question,  the  writer 
naturally  turns  round  and  deduces  the  special 
case  from  the  general  ftict.  In  more  strictly 
logical  form,  it  would  run,  "And,  as  every 
high  priest  is  constituted  to  offer  gifts' and 
sacrifices,  therefore  it  is  neces.sary,"  etc.  But 
the  thought  is  clear,  and  is  but  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  statement  of  5:1,  which  gives 
the  essential  function  of  the  high  priest, 
and  to  which  Stuart  regards  it  as  now  return- 
ing. It  is  in  some  sense  a  return  to  it,  but  in 
the  writer's  direct  course  of  argument.  He 
has  unfolded    the    Melchisedec    elements  of 


Ch.  VIII.] 


HEBREWS. 


99 


4  For  if  he  were  on  earth,  he  sliouUl  not  he  a  priest,      4  what  to  offer.   Now  if  he  were  on  earth,  he  would  not 


seeing  that  tliere  are  priesis  tliat  offer  gifts  according 
to  tlic  law  : 
5   Who   serve   unto    the   example   and   shadow    of 


be  a  priest  at  all,  seeing  there  »re  those  who  offer  the 
5  gifts  according  to  the  law;  who  serve  tluil  xvhick  is 


Christ's  Saoerdotal  office,  he  proceeds  now  to 
develop  its  Leviticul  element.  But  a  more 
importiint  matter  is  the  logical  connection  of 
tlie  verse  witii  the  context  None  of  the  in- 
terpreters, as  it  seems  to  me,  iiave  fully 
apprehended  it.  De  Wette  unhesitatingly 
charges  it  with  breaking  in  upon  and  disturb- 
ing the  course  of  the  thought.  Liinemann 
regards  it  as  an  incidental  remark  to  justify 
the  term  Aiirovpyo^.  Bengel,  with  others,  would 
enclose  it  in  a  parenthesis.  Tholuck  regards 
it  as  introduced  but  to  be  crowded  out  by 
other  ideas.  Even  Delitzsch  fails  to  make 
the  connection  clear.  If  our  analysis,  pre- 
viously given,  is  correct,  it  is  precisely  in  its 
place.  It  is  no  disturbing,  no  incidental  idea, 
nothing  to  be  shut  up  m  parentheses,  but 
is  really,  precisely  the  cnpitfil  thought  of  the 
writer,  that  to  which  the  statement  of  the 
previous  verse  was  but  subsidiary,  and  that  of 
which  all  clear  on  to  9: 14,  and,  in  fact,  to  10: 18, 
is  only  illustrative.  Why  is  Christ  minister 
in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  ?  It  is  that  he  may 
have  something  to  offer.  What  makes  the 
utility  of  his  ministry  there?  It  is  that  he 
has  something  to  offer.  What  it  is  the  author 
proceeds  by  gradually  prepared  steps  to  un- 
fold. He  is  there  to  offer  his  oivn  expiatory 
blood,  in  the  conception  of  the  Epistle,  the 
whole  pith  of  his  priesthood,  and  of  his  work 
of  salvation.  Of  course,  this  takes  for  granted 
the  previous  sacrifice  as  its  necessary  condi- 
tion. We  are  not,  then  (with  De  Wette),  to 
render  'It  was  necessary,'  instead  of  the  logi- 
cal copula,  '  It  is  necessary ' ;  nor  (with  Liine- 
mann) to  render,  "should  have  offered," 
making  it  refer  to  Christ's  earthly  sacrifice, 
instead  of  his  heavenly  priesthood.  This  is  a 
{•oniplete  perversion  of  the  author's  idea.  The 
high  priest  in  the  sanctuary,  and  there  under 
the  necessary  conditions  of  bringing  an  ex- 
piatory oflTering,  is  here  his  theme. 

(c)  So  vitally  connected  are  these  two,  the 
priesthood    and  the  ofiering,    that  on  earth 


there  would  be  no  place  for  his  priesthood,  as 
there  exist  already  there  those  who  make  the 
offerings  of  the  law,  and  whose  prerogatives 
are  inviolate.     (4.) 

4,  For  if  {indeed) — so  imperative  is  this  ne- 
cessity of  his  having,  as  High  Priest,  something 
to  offer — he  weie  on  earth,  he  should 
(would)  not  [even]  be  a  priest.  There  is  no 
stress  to  be  laid  on  the  use  of  'priest'  for  '  high 

j  priest'  (as  if  the  meaning  were,  'so  far  from 
being  a  High  Priest,  he  would  not  even  be  a 
priest').  The  use  of  'priest'  here  is  purely 
incidental,  the  generic  idea  being  put  for  the 
specific;  the  emphasis  is  on  'would  not  even 
be.''  The  mention  of  the  vital  necessity  that 
he,  as  high  priest,  bring  offerings,  suggests  the 
inquirj',  how  he  can  be  a  priest  at  all,  which 
of  course  finds  its  explanation  in  the  fact  that 
lie  is  not  on  earth  in  the  copied,  but  in  heaven 
in  the  archetypal,  taberinicle.  The  '  for,'  then, 
looks  back  to  the  preceding  clause,  'necessary 
that  he  have  something  to  offer'  ;  the  particle 
(^e.')  looks  forward  (as  always),  and  finds  its 
correlative  at  ver.  6,  but  infact^  {wvX  Se),  See- 
ing that  there  are  (since  there  exist)  those 
who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law.  Being 
(ovTuiv  =  since  there  are),  emphatic  in  position. 
The  'gifts'  here  are  equivalent  to  'gifts  and 
sacrifices'  of  the  verse  preceding,  which  stand 
forthe  whole  body  of  oflTerings  required  by  the 
law.  The  Levitical  order  would  not  be  super- 
seded without  a  reason,  and  no  reason  could 
exist  until  he  came  who  should  fulfill  all  that 
it  prefigured. 

id)  But,  in  fact,  he  is  a  High  Priest,  and 
can,  therefore,  make  offerings,  because  he  has 
the  true  tabernacle  and  the  true  priesthood,  of 
which  theirs  were  but  a  shadow,  and  a  priest- 
hood as  much  better  than  theirs  as  is  the  cove- 
nant, of  which  he  is  the  Mediator,  better  than 
theirs.     (5,  6.) 

5.  Who, etc. —the  Levitical  priests— notonly 
designaf^es  bufcharacterizes  them,  such  persons 
as    (oiTii/es)    minister   to   a   copy   and   shadow 


1  The  clause  «i  fi-iv  yap-  oW  ok  ^k,  for  if  to  be  sure — 
neither  would  he  be,  implies  that  there  is  a  supposition 
under  which  his  thesis  would  not  hold,  which  would 
even  exclude  the  consideration  of  it.  This  supposition 
must  first  he  disposed  of.  That  is  the  supiKJsilioii  of  his 
being  on  earth.    There  there  is  full  provision  made  for 


offering  the  gifts  of  the  law ;  there  is  a  priesthood  or- 
dained, whose  functions  must  not  be  encroached  ui>on. 
The  very  form  of  construction,  however,  implies  Ihiil 
the  ca.se  thus  supposed  does  not  exist.  Christ  is  not  on 
earth,  and  therefore  he  can  be  a  priest,  and  offer  sacri- 
fices without  violating  established  institutions. 


100 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VIIL 


heavenly  things,  as  JJoses  was  admonished  of  God 
when  he  was  about  to  make  the  taljernacle:  for,  See, 
saiili  he,  that  thou  malce  all  things  according  to  the 
pattern  shewed  to  thee  in  the  mount. 


a  copy  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things,  even  as 
Moses  is  warned  of  Gud  when  he  is  about  to  i  make 
the  tabernacle:  for,  See,  saith  he,  that  thou  make  all 
things  according  to  the  pattern  thai  was  shewed  thee 


1  Or,  complete. 


of  the  heavenly  \_sanctuary'\  {ayitav  understood 
with  inovpaviav).  They  are  such  as  minister  to 
a  tabernacle  which  is  a  mere  representative 
copy  (uTToSeiyna) '  of  the  true.  Their  ministry  is 
merely  prefigurative,  and  ready  to  yield  when 
the  thing  signified  comes  in  place  of  the  sign. 
The  author  accomplishes  a  double  purpose. 
IJe  shows  why  Christ  could  not  be  a  priest  on 
earth,  and  why  he  can  be  one  in  heaven.  The 
earthly  ranks  are  filled  up.  The  earthly 
sphere  of  service  is  pre-occupied ;  but  that 
sphere  is  itself  merely  shadowy  and  transi- 
tory, and  there  is  yet  room  for  him  who  real- 
izes the  significance  of  that  priesthood,  and 
for  him  alone.  As  Moses  Avas  admon- 
ished)  etc. — that  is,  hath  been  instructed  of 
God  when  about  to  complete  the  tabernacle. 
This  is  added  in  illustration  of  the  character 
which  he  has  just  assigned  to  the  earthly  tab- 
ernacle, as  being  but  a  copy  and  adumbration 
or  shadowy  image  of  the  heavenly.  (Ex.  25 :  40.) 
For,  See,  saith  he,  that  thou  make  all 
things  according  to  (after)  the  pattern 
shewed  to  thee  in  the  mount.  The  Mosaic 
tabernacle  was  made  after  a  model.  How  this 
pattern  was  shown  to  Moses  it  is  idle  curiously 
tp  inquire;  nor  would  there  have  arisen  any 
question  about  it  but  for  the  rhetorical  use  to 
which  the  author  puts  it,  making  it  very  natu- 
rally, as  it  came  from  God  on  Mount  Sinai, 
stand,  not  for  the  literal  pattern  of  the  taber- 
nacle to  be  made,  but  as  representative  of  the 
divine  ideas  which  that  tabernacle  was  to  sym- 
bolize. There  can  really  be  no  doubt  that 
there  was  shown  to  Moses  in  vision,  or  with 
the  bodily  eye,  an  exact  model  of  the  structure 
which  he  was  to  rear,  and  which  model  he  was 
precisely  to  imitate.  This  is  all  that  seems  to 
be  meant  by  the  passage  in  Exodus,  and  all 
which  I  supi)ose  our  autlior  believed  it  to 
mean.  He  has  indeed  made  a  figurative  apjjli- 
cation  of  the  language,  as  if  the  tabernacle 
which  Moses  saw  in  the  Mount  was  the  real. 


original  heavenly  tabernacle,  in  which  the 
Lord  now  ministers.  I  cannot,  however,  sup- 
pose either  that  any  such  thing  was  implied  in 
Exodus,  or  that  he  considered  it  to  be,  or  suj)- 
posed  himself  to  be  doing  anything  more 
than  merely  accommodating  a  passage  to 
which  he  never  would  have  dreamed  of 
giving  the  force  of  an  argument.  God  made 
that  tabernacle  on  Mount  Sinai  of  which 
the  tabernacle  of  Moses  was  an  earthly  and 
material  copy.  How  natural,  in  the  way  of 
rhetorical  illustration,  to  transfer  in  idea  this 
divine  original  to  the  spiritual  tabernacle,  in 
which  our  Lord  ministers,  and  which  both  the 
one  and  the  other  merely  typified  !  How  nat- 
ural, I  say,  without  supposing  for  a  moment 
that  the  writer  was  doing  more  than  merely 
employing  an  illustration,  and  addressing  an 
argument  to  the  imagination  rather  than  to 
the  reason  !  How  natural  to  express  the  sub- 
ordinate and  copied  character  of  the  Levitical 
tabernacle  by  a  reference  to  the  direction, 
'  See  thou  make  all  after  the  pattern  shewed 
thee  in  the  mount' !  And  nothing  more  strik- 
ingly illustrates  the  routine  character  of  much 
of  our  exegesis  than  the  numerous  endeavors 
of  interpreters,  taking  this  as  a  literal  and  pro- 
saic proof,  to  find  how  this  heavenly,  arche- 
typal tabernacle  was  revealed  to  Moses,  and 
what  heavenly  elements  corresponded  to  the 
several  parts  of  the  earthly  structure.  The 
figurative  language  of  the  author  is  a])propri- 
ate  and  beautiful,  so  long  as  we  hold  to  the 
figure,  and  do  not  undertake  to  convert  rhet- 
oric into  logic.  When  we  come  to  the  actual 
facts  of  the  case  we  cannot  for  a  moment  sup- 
pose that  there  is  or  was  any  actual  outer  and 
inner  sanctuary  in  heaven,  corresponding  to 
the  separate  compartments  of  the  tabernacle. 
This  was  expressive,  not  of  topographical,  but 
of  moral  and  spiritual  fiicts  and  relations.  It 
was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  existing.  The 
vail   hanging  between   the  outer  and    inner 


''Yn-oS«iy|ua  is  somewhat  difficult  to  define  exuctlj.  ]  placed  under  (he  eyes,  a  strpi,  fokeji ;  or  something  shown 
'YTroJeiKi'u/oii,  to  place  under  the  eyes,  or  to  show /«  i?(6- I  subserviently  to  another,  its  pattern  or  its  copy;  or 
ordination  to  something,  as  its  pattern,  for  example,  or  something  shown  faintly  (i"r<>),  as  an  outline,  sketch,  faint 
copy ;  or  to  show  faintly.  The  preposition  may  give  either  1  rej)re.senlation.  Either  copy  or  faint  representation,  would 
of  these  modihcations.      Hence,  iiito&eiyixa,  something  \  answer  here. 


Ch.  VIIL] 


HEBREWS. 


101 


6  But  now  halh  he  obtained  a  more  excellent  minis-  I    6  in  the  mount.    But  now  hatli  he  obtained  a  niiuislry 
try,  by  how  much  also  he  is  the  mediator  of  a  better  the  more  excellent,  by  how  much  also  he  is  the  uiudi- 

coveaant,  which  was  estaolished  upon  better  promises.  |        ator  of  a  better  covenant,  which  huih  been  enacted 


sanctuary,  and  excluding  all  but  the  high 
priest,  and  him  at  all  but  widely  separated 
times,  from  the  inner,  indicated,  as  the  author 
himself  assures  us,  that  the  way  into  the  Holi- 
est of  All  had  not  yet  been  opened  to  nmn. 
It  indicated  simply  that  for  man  as  a  sinner, 
without  atonement  and  pardon,  there  was  no 
true  access  to  God.  It  embodied  an  idea.  It 
represented  a  state  of  tilings  existing  on  earth, 
not  in  heaven,  and  a  state  of  things  which 
was  done  away  in  the  death  of  Christ.  The 
thoroughly  symbolical  character  of  the  whole 
is  shown  by  the  description  of  the  vail,  which 
was,  says  the  writer,  the  flesh  of  Christ.  The 
meaning  of  this  is  evident.  The  death  of 
Christ  was  necessary  in  order  to  break  down 
'  the  wall  which  separates  man  from  God.  At 
his  crucifixion  the  vail  of  the  temple  was  rent 
in  twain  from  the  top  to  the  bottom,  and  the 
separating  barrier  which  his  offering  in  the 
flesh  was  necessary  to  remove  might  be  easily 
said  to  consist  in  his  flesh;  for  the  as  yet  un- 
broken body  of  Christ,  like  the  as  yet  unrent 
vail  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  was  between 
man  and  God.  The  inner  tabernacle,  then,  as 
well  as  the  outer  one,  can  have  no  other  than 
a  moral  significance.  And  with  the  dying 
and  rising  of  Christ,  the  grand  idea  expressed 
by  the  outer  one  belongs  to  the  past.  All 
efforts  to  find  it  in  Christ's  human  body,  in 
his  life  on  earth  (Ebrard),  in  the  lower  hea- 
vens (De  Wette,  Liinemann,  etc.),  in  Christ's 
glorified  body  (Hofmann),  in  the  heaven  of 
glorified  saints  (Delitzsch),  in  Christ's  mysti- 
cal body  (an  attempted  union  of  the  two  last 
ideas  by  Alford),  are  a  waste  of  ingenuity. 
That  Christ's  earthly  body,  or  his  life  on 
earth,  is  the  outer  tabernacle,  needs  to  be  re- 
futed by  no  arguiiient.  That  his  glorified 
body  is  the  outer  tabernacle  is  worse  than  idle 
fancy;  it  is  simply  monstrous.  For  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  his  glorified  body  that  he  dwells  in 
the  inner  sanctuary,  and  his  glorified  body 
never  existed  until  after  the  outer  sanctuary 
had  been  annihilated  by  his  vail-rending 
death.  To  convert  the  loioer  heavens  into  the 
outer  tabernacle  is  to  transform  an  important 
spiritual  symbol  into  a  lesson  in  topograph^'. 
The  explanation  which  might  make  nearest 
approach  to  plausibility  is  that  of  Delitzsch, 


j  which  makes  the  outer  tabernacle  represent 
the  heaven  of  the  saints  (including,  perhaps, 
the  people  of  God  on  earth),  who,  like  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  were  kept  from  the  more 
immediate  presence  of  God,  and  served  liim  at 
an  awful  distance,  until  Christ  broke  down 
the  separating  barrier,  and  brings  them  into 
actual  nearness  to  God.  Just  so  soon,  how- 
ever, as  we  localize  this  idea,  and  make  the 
outer  tabernacle  a  part  of  the  heavenly  ar- 
rangements, we  confuse  and  destroy  the  figure. 
The  priest  passed  through  the  outer  into  the 
inner  tabernacle;  but  Christ  could  not  pass 
through  the  outc  into  the  inner  tabernacle  on 
high,  for  that  outer  tabernacle  had  ceased  to 
exist.  It,  or  the  great  fact  which  it  symbol- 
ized, was  done  away  at  his  death.  The  sepa- 
rating vail,  with  its  solemn  and  dread  signifi- 
cance, had  hung  from  the  time  of  Moses  to 
the  scene  of  Calvary,  and  then  it  was  rent  in 
twain ;  and  if  the  Jews  replaced  it,  they  per- 
formed an  act  of  gratuitous  wickedness. 

0.  But  now — {vvv'i  Se),  as  the  case  actually 
stands;  {wvi,  logical),  instead  of  being  on  the 
earth,  and  ministering  to  a  copy  and  shadow 
of  the  true  tabernacle,  or  being  where  he 
could  only  so  minister — hath  he  obtained  a 
more  excellent  ministry — higher  priestly 
service — by  how  much  also  he  is  the  me- 
diator of  a  better  covenant  which  Avas 
established  (hath  been  instituted)  upon 
better  promises.  The  problem,  then,  sug- 
gested above  how  Christ  could  be  a  priest  and 
have  something  to  offer  without  violating  estab- 
lished institutions,  is  resolved.  He  could  be 
so,  because  he  comes  in  with  a  New  Covenant, 
which  supersedes  the  Old,  and  he  is  Priest  in 
the  heavenly  archetypal  sanctuary,  which  has 
replaced  its  earthly  semblance.  And  now  to 
find  what  he  has  to  offer,  what  is  the  nature  of 
his  service,  we  must  lookback  to  that  covenant 
which  his  has  superseded,  and  see  what  were 
the  typical  offerings  of  its  typical  priesthood. 
This  would  naturally  be  the  author's  next  topic. 
He  would  proceed  to  deduce  from  the  nature 
of  the  offering  of  the  Jewish  high  i)riest  the 
nature  of  the  offering  brought  by  Christ.  But 
this  is  postponed  to  the  next  chapter.  The 
mention  of  Christ's  better  priesthood,  with  it* 
better  covenant  and  better  promises,  leads  the 


102 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


7  ]"or  if  that  first  covenmH  had  been  faultless,  then  I  7  upon  better  promises.     For  if  that  first  co!'ena»i<  had 
should  no  ])laee  have  been  sought  for  the  second.  been  faultless,  then  would  no  place  have  been  sought 

8  lor  tinding  fault  with  them,  he  saith,  Behold,  the  8  for  a  second.    For  '  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith, 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
co.'euant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  tho  house  That  I  will  2njake  a   new   covenant  with   the 
of  Judah:  house    of    Israel    and    with    the   house   of 

Judah; 


1  Some  ancient  authorities  yqaA  finding  fault  with  it  he  saith  unto  them 2  Gi*.  accomplish. 


authi)r  to  pause  a  moment  in  the  imrnediate 
train  of  argument  to  show  why  that  Old  Cove- 
nant has  been  superseded,  and  wherein  consist 
the  better  promises  of  the  New. 

(e)  For  tliat  the  New  is  better  than  the  first 
(this  subordinately  and  in  passing)  is  clear 
from  its  having  superseded  it.  For  God,  hav- 
ing found  the  first  ineflRcacious,  replaces  it  by 
a  new,  and  the  former  one  becomes  antiquated 
and  expires.     (7-13.) 

Theseverses  which  illustnite  this  point  might 
have  been  omitted  without  injury  to  the  imme- 
diate argument;  but  they  are  vital  to  the  gen- 
eral subject,  and  though  strictlj'  a  digression, 
are  by  no  means  an  unwarranted  digression. 

7.  For  if  that  first  covenant,  etc.— that 
first  one  were  frndtless,  there  would  not  be 
sought  a  place  for  a  second.  Here,  as  at  7  :  11, 
the  author  reasons  to  the  imperfection  of  the 
first  from  the  fact  of  its  supersedure.  Bleek 
somewhat  fancifully  finds  this  'place'  for  the 
Second  Covenant  in  the  'heart'  as  distin- 
guished from  the  tablets  of  stone  on  which  the 
older  was  engraved.  But  there  is  no  necessity 
for  such  refining.  The  simple  and  obvious 
import  of  the  language  is  that,  apart  from  the 
imperfection  of  the  First,  there  would  have 
been  no  demand  for  the  Second;  no  room 
would  have  been  sought  for  it  by  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  First.  The  one  cannot  come  without 
displacing  the  other. 

8-12.  An  extended  citation  of  a  celebrated 
passage  from  Jer.  31  :  31-34,  which,  connected 
immediately  in  its  origin  with  the  return  from 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  yet  has  unquestioned 
ultimate  reference  to  the  times  of  the  Messiah. 
Li  ice  most  of  the  Messianic  prophecies,  it  stands 
originally  connected  with  a  subordinate  local 
event,  and,  like  them,  passes  beyond  that 
event  to  the  great  theine  and  scope  of  all 
prophecy,  the  Messianic  epoch  and  salvation. 
Although  the  passage  is  here  subordinate  to 
the  author's  immediate  purpose  (Christ's  heav- 


enly priesthood  in  connection  with  the  better 
Covenant)  it  is  too  weighty  in  its  testimony  to 
the  superiority  of  the  New  Covenant  to  the 
Old,  to  allow  of  its  being  passed  over.  The 
quotation  is  from  the  Sei)tuagint,  with  slight 
verbal  variations. 

8.  For^finding  fault  [with  it]  he  saith 
to  them.  Or,  ''^  For  finding  fault  with  t/iem, 
he  saith."  Either  construction  has  authority, 
and  perhaps  nearly  equally  balanced.  If  we 
read  the  accussitive  (ai-Tous),!  the  second  con- 
struction, 'finding  fault  with  tliem,  he  saith' 
is  the  only  possible  one.  If  the  dative  (avToi«),2 
we  may  render  still  '  finding  fault  with  them  ' 
(constructing /iieM<{ioMat  with  the  dative),  or  more 
easily  '  finding  fault  [with  it]  he  saith  to  them.' 
This  latter  has  slightly  against  it  the  posi- 
tion of  the  dative  (avTois),  which  unless 
emphatic  would  naturally  follow  the  'he 
saith'  (Aeyei).  But,  ou  the  other  hand,  the 
correspondence  between  the  words  'foultless' 
and  'finding  fault  with'  (aMeMTTos  and  neii4>6- 
M«vos),  already  makes  it  natural  to  apply  the 
'finding  fault'  rather  to  the  covenant  than  to 
the  persons,  and  creates  a  strong  presumption 
in  favor  of  tiie  former  construction.  Besides, 
as  Stuart  justly  observes  (after  Theophylact, 
Grotius,  etc.),  the  passage,  in  its  Old  Testament 
connection,  is  the  one  in  which  God  is  talking 
tenderly  and  graciously,  rather  than  reproach- 
fully, to  his  people,  and  throwing  the  blame 
of  their  conduct  rather  on  the  inadequacy  of 
the  covenant  than  on  their  perverseness.  "With 
some  hesitation,  therefore  (against  Delitzsch 
and  others),  I  prefer  the  former  construction. 
We  may,  indeed,  render  'finding  fault,  he 
saith  totl.em,'  and  leave  it  undecided  whether 
the  object  of  the  censure  is  people  or  covenant. 
Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  JLord, 
when  I  will  make  (accomplish — literally, 
'  there  come  days  and  I  will  accomplish,' 
by  a  familiar  Hebraism)  a  new  covenant 
with  (ypon)  the  house  of  Israel  and  the 


>  With  X  *  A  D  *  K  P,  etc.,  followed  by  Lachmauu,  Tischeudorf  (Ed.  8),  Westcott  and  Hort 
2  With  X«  D*  *  *  E  L,  etc.,  Chrysost«m. 


Ch.  VIII.] 


HEBREWS. 


103 


9  Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  wade  with 
their  fathers,  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  lead  them  out  of  llie  land  of  Egypt;  because  they 
continued  not  in  luy  covenant,  and  I  regarded  them 
not,  saith  the  Lord. 

10  For  this  i.v  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord;  1  will 
put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts:  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  (.iod,  and  they  shall  be 
to  me  a  people : 


Not   according    to   the    covenant   that   I   made 

with  their  lathers 
In  the  day  that  I  took  them   by   the  hand  to 

lead  them  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt; 
For  they  continued  not  in  my  covenant, 
And  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord. 
For  this  is  the  covenant  that '  I  will  make  with 

the  house  of  Israel 
After  those  d:iys,  saith  the  Lord  ; 
I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind, 
And  on  their  heart  also  will  I  write  them: 
And  I  will  be  to  them  a  God, 
And  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people : 


1  Gr.  I  unit  covenant. 


house  of  Judah.  The  author  has  substi- 
tuted for  the  Septuagint,  '  I  will  institute  with 
the  house'  (5ia97((ro(ioi  raj  oiicai),  another  expres- 
sion, 'I  will  accomplish  upon  the  house' 
(^<TvvTfKe<Ta>  eirl  Tof  oIkov).  He  has,  however, 
merely  substituted  a  different  rendering,  given 
elsewhere  by  the  Septuagint  for  the  same 
original  expression.  He  has  probably  made 
the  variation  designedly  (De  Wette)  in  order 
to  bring  out  the  idea  of  accomplishtnent  in 
connection  with  the  New  Covenant. 

9.  Negative  characteristic  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant. Not  according  to  the  covenant  that 
I  made  (en-oijio-a;  Septuagint,  5i«de^)j»')  with 
their  fathers  in  the  day  when  I  took 
them  by  the  hand  (eirtAa/ScVSot,  took  hold  of 
for  the  purpose  of  succoring  and  rescuing; 
see  similar  idea  2  :  16)  to  lead  them  (forth) 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  indicates 
clearly  tiie  Mosaic  Covenant  formed  in  the 
wilderness.  The  reference  to  the  circumstances 
of  its  formation — when  God  rescued  them 
from  their  Egyptian  bondage — was  designed, 
by  reminding  the  people  how  much  grace 
attended  the  formation  of  that  covenant,  to 
enhance  their  conception  of  the  grace  included 
in  a  covenant  which  shall  set  that  aside  as 
inadequate  to  answer  God's  gracious  purposes. 
That  was  a  covenant  made  in  the  day  when 
lie  lifted  them  from  their  Egyptian  bondage. 
How  gracious,  then,  shall  be  the  Dispensation 
whicli  shall  annul  and  supersede  that  as  inop- 
erative and  worthless  !  Because  they  con- 
tinued not  (did  not  abide)  in  my  covenant, 
and  I  regarded  them  not  (disregarded  them), 
saith  the  Lord.  The  emphasis  of  the  origi- 
nal, with  its  emphatic  pronouns,  does  not  quite 
re-appear  in  the  version  :  '  They  did  not  abide,' 
etc.,  and  /  in  turn  neglected  them.  This  is 
added  as  showing  the  inadequacy  of  the  cove- 
nant. It  could  not  hold  either  of  the  parties, 
though — in  each  case,  respectivel3' — for  differ- 


ent reasons.  It  could  not  enforce  its  obliga- 
tions on  the  people,  and,  as  it  were,  compelled 
God  to  withdraw  his  favor  from  a  covenants 
breaking  people.  Nay,  with  inexpressible 
tenderness,  as  if  the  heart  of  God  were  melting 
within  him,  he,  as  it  were,  takes  part  of  the 
blame  to  himself,  and  finds  fault  with  a  cove- 
nant which  left  it  possible  for  the  people  to 
disobey  him,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  for  him 
to  neglect  and  disregard  the  people. 

10.  For  {because)  this  is  the  covenant 
which  I  will  make  with  the  house  of 
Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord. 
'This'  is  here  equivalent  to  s?<cA,  of  such  a 
nature ;  namely,  As  I  am  about  to  describe. 
'  Because,' then,  is  here  used  in  its  strictly 
appropriate  sense.  God  is  going  to  justify  his 
use  of  the  term  'new'  in  its  ajiplication  to  the 
covenant  which  he  will  hereafter  form  with 
the  people  of  Israel,  and  to  show  why  it  really 
is  a  New  Covenant.  The  remainder  of  the 
verse  may  be  thus  given :  Giving  my  laws  into 
their  understanding  [will  I  make  ii],  and  upon 
their  hearts  will  I  inscribe  them.  The  above 
is,  perhaps,  the  simplest  mode  of  completing 
the  participial  construction,  although  it  may 
be  constructed  as  follows:  'Giving  my  laws,' 
etc.,  ^  also  upon  their  hearts  will  I  inscribe 
thetn.'  This,  however,  makes  a  difference  in 
the  emphasis  of  the  two  clauses  which  seems 
foreign  to  the  purpose  of  the  author.  The 
construction  may  be  a  simple  anacoloiithon. 
Here  is  one  of  the  'better  promises'  of  the 
New  Covenant — the  promise  of  an  inward 
spiritupl  influence,  which  shall  secure  obedi- 
ence, and  make  the  Covenant  effective.  A 
consequence  of  this  immediately  follows  : 
And  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people.  (Kxod. fi:7,  scor. 6:i6.) 
Here  is  promised  the  establishing  of  intimate 
and  confidential  relations  between  God  and 
his  people,  which  cannot  be  broken  up,  being 


104 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


11  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his  neigh- 
bour, and  every  man  his  brother,  saying  Know  ihe 
Lord:  lor  all  shall  know  uie,  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest. 

12  For  I  will  lie  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness, 
and  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  1  remember  no 
more. 

13  In  thpt  he  saith,  A  new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the 
first  old.  Now  that  which  decayelh  and  waxeth  old  is 
ready  to  vanish  away. 


11  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his  fellow- 

citizen. 
And  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the 

Lord : 
For  all  shall  know  me. 
From  the  least  to  the  greatest  of  them. 

12  For  I  will  be  merciliil  to  their  iniquities, 
And  their  sins  will  1  remember  uo  more. 

13  In  that  he  saith,  A  new  covenant,  he  hatli  made  the 
first  old.  But  that  which  is  becoming  old  and  wax- 
eth  aged  is  nigh  uuto  vanishing  away. 


guaranteed  by  the  living  spiritual  power  at- 
tendant on  the  Covenant.  The  Old  Covenant 
established  this  relation  between  God  and  his 
people  outwardly.  But  it  could  not  make  it 
inward,  and,  therefore,  could  not  make  it 
pernianerit. 

11.  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man 
his  neighbour  {fellow  citizen),  and  every 
man  his  brother,  saying.  Know  the  Lord : 
for  {because)  all  shall  [will)  know  me,  from 
the  least  to  the  greatest  of  them  (literally, 
from  the  small  unto  the  great  one  of  them). 
This  is  the  second  of  the  better  promises  of  the 
New  Covenant.  Its  import  is  that  they  shall 
not  need  to  teach  one  another,  because  "  they 
shall  all  be  taught  of  God."  God  will  write 
his  law  upon  the  heart,  and  instill  it  into  the 
mind,  and  thus  not  leave  them  to  the  doubtful 
and  unsatisfactory  processes  of  human  instruc- 
tion. The  Divine  Spirit  will  impart  to  all  his 
direct  illuminations.  This  of  course  marks  the 
intrinsic  and  essential  character  of  the  New 
Covenant,  as  promising  and  securing  to  its 
subjects  large  and  immediate  spiritual  influ- 
ence— its  ideal  character  and  tendency,  which 
will  be  realized  just  in  proportion  as  it  accom- 
plishes its  work,  and  fully  so  when  the  "  people 
shall  be  all  righteous." 

12.  The  third  better  promise  of  the  New 
Covenant.  Because  (not  yop  for,  giving  the 
logical  reason  of  the  preceding  statement: 
but  oTi  because,  assigning  the  efficient  cause  of 
the  preceding /flc<  .•  as  if  he  said,  "  And  this 
shall  be.  because,''  etc.).  I  will  be  merciful, 
etc. — that  is,  propitious,  gracious  toward  their 
acts  of  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins  will  I 
remember  no  m.ore.  This  completes  the  cata- 
logue of  the  blessed  prerogatives  of  the  New 
Covenant;  those  better  promises  which  give 
it  its  superiority  over  the  Old.  The  inward 
constraining  power  of  God's  love  ;  a  universal 
opening  of  the  heart  to  those  teachings  of  God 
which  will  supersede  the  laborious  teachings 
of  men,  and  make  divine  knowledge  univer- 
sal ;  and  finally  a  full  and  free  remission  of 


sins, — are  the  elements  which   make  up  the 
better  promises  of  the  better  Covenant. 

13.  The  logical  inference  from  the  designa- 
tion New  Covenant.  lu  that  he  saith  (in 
saying  a  new  [covena7it]  ),  he  hath  made 
the  first  old  (antiquated) — he  has  put  it  into 
the  category  of  antiquated  things.  The  logi- 
cal connection  is  put  for  the  efficient  connec- 
tion. God's  using  the  term  new  is  equivalent 
to  making  that  old  which  the  new  displaces. 
Now,  etc.  ;  and  that  which  is  becom.ing  anti- 
quated and  growing  old  is  near  to  disappear- 
ing, is  on  the  verge  of  extinction,  is  ready  to 
vanish  away.  This  verse  puts  the  seal  on  the 
language  which  declares  the  imperfection  of 
the  First  Covenant,  and  its  abrogation  to  give 
place  to  a  better,  and  to  a  better  mediating 
priesthood.  The  author  has  disposed  of  the 
question  how  and  under  what  conditions  this 
new  and  glorious  Melchisedec  Priest  could  be 
inaugurated  and  perform  his  priestly  functions. 
He  could  not  be  so  on  earth,  because  there  is 
already  a  regularly  constituted  priesthood  to 
offer  the  gifts  and  sacrifices  of  the  law.  He 
could  be  so  only  by  taking  the  heavenly  and 
antitypical  instead  of  the  merely  typical  priest- 
hood, and  with  this  the  heavenly  throne,  in- 
stead of  the  earthly  and  shadowy  sanctuary. 
And  this  he  could  do,  because  he  comes  in 
with  a  better  Covenant  which  supersedes  the 
Old,  by  prerogatives  admirably  illustrated  in 
the  citation  from  Jeremiah.  The  Old  Cove- 
nant, then,  has  passed  away,  and  with  it  the  old 
priesthood,  and  the  way  is  now  prepared  for 
returning  to  the  thesis  of  ver.  3 ;  namely,  that 
the  High  Priest  of  the  New  Covenant  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary  must  have  sotnething  to 
offer.  Of  this  he  has  not  in  his  temporary 
digression  lost  sight,  and  he  now  returns  to  it 
by  inquiring  into  the  arrangements  of  that 
priestl-yservice  under  the  Old  Covenant,  which, 
though  imperfect  and  transitory,  was  yet 
typical  of  the  higher  service,  and  will  indicate 
its  nature.  He  sets  forth  first  some  general 
features  of  that  antiquated  Covenant  with  a 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


105 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THEN  verily  the  first  covenant  had  also  ordinances  of 
divine  service,  and  a  worldly  sanctuary. 
2  Kor  there  was  a  tabernacle  made ;  the  first,  wherein 
was  the  candlestick,  and  the  table,  and  the  shewbread  ; 
which  is  called  the  sanctuary. 


1  Now  even  the  first  covenant  had  ordinances  of  di- 
vine service,  and  its  sanctuary,  a  .sanctuary  of  this 

2  world.  For  there  was  a  tabernacle  prepared,  the 
first,  wherein  '  were  the  candlestick,  and  the  table, 
and  2  the  shew-bread  ;  which  is  called  the  Holy  place. 


1  Or,  are i  Gr.  (Ae  letting  forth  of  the  loave: 


view  to  showing  its  dignity  and  glory,  and 
thus  embracing  the  excellency  of  the  Cove- 
nant which  has  superseded  it.  All,  however, 
is  preliminary  and  subordinate  to  the  grand 
point  brought  out  at  9:7;  namely,  that  the 
high  priest  entered  at  stated  seasons  the  inner 
sanctuary  not  without  blood,  whence  also 
comes  out  (ver.  ii,  12)  what  is  the  nature  of  the 
high  priest's  offering  on  high. 


Ch.  9 :  (/)  But  that  First  Covenant  (for  to 
see  how  the  New  is  organized,  we  must  look 
back  to  that,  its  copy  ;  and  to  see  what  the  new 
High  Priest  must  offer,  we  must  look  back  and 
see  what  the  old  one  offered)  had  its  ordi- 
nances of  service,  and  its  sanctuary  consisting 
of  two  tabernacles,  an  outer  or  more  common, 
and  an  inner  and  holier  one.     (9  :  1-5.) 

1-5.  Preliminary  description  of  the  taber- 
nacle. 

1.  Then  verily  {now  even)  the  first  [cove- 
nant] had.  We  might,  perhaps,  bring  out 
better  the  emphasis  of  the  original  by  rendering 
a  little  freely,  "There  belonged,  indeed  now, 
also  to  the  first  [covenant]."  The  logical  par- 
ticle (oJf)  connects  with  the  preceding,  and 
implies  that  to  the  First  Covenant,  though 
now  antiquated  and  abrogated,  we  are  still  to 
look  for  instruction  regarding  the  nature  of 
the  Second.  Though  but  a  copy,  it  resembled 
the  original :  though  but  a  shadow,  it  repre- 
sented the  substance.  The  relation  of  the 
particle  (/xfV,  which,  as  always,  looks  forward, 
tlxe  iJiiv,  possessed,  indeed)  is  a  little  difficult. 
It  is  not  quite  easy  to  decide  whether  it  has  its 
correlation  in  the  particle  in  ver.  6  (fie,  prop- 
erly "but"  or  "and,"  not  "now")  orof  ver.  11. 
The  general  thought  seems  to  demand  the 
latter,  and  when  the  author  commenced  the 
chapter  the  contrast  in  his  mind  was  appar- 
ently not  between  the  more  worldly  aiifl  non- 
essential, and  the  more  spiritual,  elements  in 
this  Covenant,  but  between  its  arrangements 
and  those  of  the  New.  But  as  he  advances,  this 


contrast  between  the  more  and  less  material 
features  of  the  old  tabernacle  come  more  dis- 
tinctly into  view,  making  a  sort  of  double 
antithesis,  partly  between  the  structure  and 
the  priestly  services  of  the  old  tabernacle,  and 
partly  and  still  more  between  these  latter  and 
those  of  the  New.  Thus,  with  Delitzsch,  I 
incline  to  regard  the  former  particle  (/acV)  as 
having  a  double  correlation  both  with  ver.  6 
and  11,  rather  than  with  either  separately. 
That  originally  in  the  author's  mind,  however, 
I  think  was  with  ver.  11.  Had  (elxe^)  not  in 
contrast  to  the  present  actual  non-existence  of 
the  Old  Covenant  tabernacle  and  services 
(because  although  the  ancient  tabernacle  did 
not  exist,  the  temple  worship  which  succeeded 
to  it,  did),  but  to  the  fact  that  the  Old  Cove- 
nant itself  has  become  really  antiquated  and 
superseded,  and  has  but  a  tolerated,  not  a 
legitimate  existence.  Ordinances  of  divine 
(j>riestly)  service  and  its  sanctuary  of  {be- 
longing to)  this  world.  The  Common  Version, 
'a  worldly  sanctuary,'  gives  the  general  idea 
of  the  latter  clause,  but  not  the  more  precise 
shade  of  the  original,  in  which  '  worldly  '  ap- 
pears either  as  an  after-thought,  'and  had  its 
sanctuary,  namely,  or  although,  a  worldly 
one;'' or  simply  as  predicate;  'and  had  its  sanc- 
tuary belonging  to  the  world ;  namely,  the 
sanctuary  which  it  had  belonged  to  the  world.' 
It  contrasts  the  sanctuary  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant, the  material  Mosaic  tabernacle,  with  its 
heavenly  counterpart  in  which  Christ  minis- 
ters. The  sanctuary  is  described  immediately 
after,  and  the  ordinances  of  priestly  service 
in  a  very  general  way,  so  far  as  is  necessary 
for  the  writer's  purpose,  in  verses  6,  7. 

2.  For  there  was  a  tabernacle  made 
{prepared) — constructed,  fitted  out,  arranged. 
'Tabernacle'  is  here  used  to  denote  the 
whole  structure  embracing  two  subordinate 
taberriacles.  The  *name,  when  used  abso- 
lutely however,  denotes  the  whole,  without 
regard  to  its  divisions.  The  first — 'the 
first,'    locally,   to    one    entering,    in    distinc- 


106 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


3  And  after  the  second  vail,  the  tabernacle  which  is 
called  the  holiest  of  all; 

4  Which  had  the  golden  censer,  and  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  overlaid  round  about  with  gold,  wherein  was 
the  golden  pot  that  bad  manna,  and  Aaron's  rod  that 
budded,  and  the  tables  of  the  covenant ; 


3  And  after  the  second  veil,  the  tabernacle  which  is 

4  called  the  Holy  of  holies ;  having  a  golden  i  altar  of 
incense,  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  round 
aboui  with  gi-ld,  wherein  '^wus  a  golden  pot  holding 
the  manna,  and  Aaron's  rod  that  budded,  and  the 


tion  from  the  Holy  of  Holies.  They  were 
strictly  two  parts  of  the  tabernacle — where- 
in was  (^aiike,  re)  the  candlestick  (the 
candelabrum,  bearing  with  its  six  arms,  in- 
cluding the  shaft,  seven  candelabra,  Exod. 
25  :  31-39;  37  :  17-24)— and  the  table  (of 
acacia  wood,  overlaid  with  pure  gold,  Exod. 
25  :  23-30)  and  the  shewbread  {setting  forth 
of  the  Loaves) — doubtless  not  the  mere  usage  of 
exhibiting  the  bread,  but  the  bread  actually 
exhibited,  as  the  author  is  speaking  of  concrete 
objects.  (Alford,  Delitzsch.)  Which  [first 
tiihemacle]  is  called  the  sanctuary — that  is, 
Holy  [things.]  i 

3.  And  after  {behind)  the  second  vail  (one 
vail  hungin  frontof  the  door  of  the  tabernacle, 
Exod.  26  :  36,  87),  the  tabernacle  which  is 
called  the  holiest  of  all,  the  Holy  of  Holies 
— a  Hebraistic  periphrasis  for  a  superlative, 
equivalent  to  the  all  holy,  the  holiest.  Our 
author,  however,  generally  for  brevity  desig- 
nates this  inner  sanctury  simply  as  'the  holy,' 
'the  sanctuary '  (ayta). 

4.  Which  had)  etc.  {having  a  golden  altar 
of  incense),  or,  golden  censer — for  both  these 
meanings  are  given  to  the  word  (Su/aiaTijpioi'), 
and  it  is  difficult  to  decide  between  them.^ 
There  is  no  golden  censer  mentioned  in  the 
Law.  only  a  shallow,  brazen  basin  (called  in 
theSeptuagintn-upeioc,  notdv/jnarqpiov),  employed 
by  the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atonement,  fbr 
taking  incense  from  the  altar.  Later,  how- 
ever, we  learn  from  the  Mischna  that  a  golden 
censer  was  employed  on  this  day,  and  much 
importance  is  attached  to  it.  Still  it  could 
hardly  have  been  kept  in  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
(as  certainly  the  wvpelov  was  not),  and,  therefore, 
it  could  be  but  in  a  loose  sense  said  to  belong 
to  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  neither  was  the 
altar  of  incense  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  but  was 
one  of  the  prominent  objects  of  the  first  taber- 
nacle,  and  this,   therefore,   it  at  first   would 


hardly  seem  could  be  intended,  unless  we  at- 
tribute (with  many)  to  the  author  an  ignorance 
of  the  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary  wholly 
incredible  under  the  circumstances.  Neither, 
then,  of  the  two  could  the  inner  sanctuary  be 
said  to  'have,'  in  the  sense  of  actually  con- 
taining  it.  But  either  of  them  it  might  be  said 
to  have,  in  that  both  sustained  an  important 
relation  to  it.  The  censer  was  actually  used 
to  carry  incense  into  it :  the  altar  was  to  stand 
in  front  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (which 
was  behind  the  vail),  between  the  candlestick 
and  the  table,  was  sprinkled  with  blood  on 
the  day  of  atonement,  as  well  as  the  mercy 
seat,  and  thus  stands  in  a  peculiar  relation  to 
the  inner  sanctuary.  So  also  it  is  assigned 
(i  Kings  6: 22)  to  the  Holy  of  Holies  {''The 
altar  that  was  by  the  oracle"),  a  passage 
which  Keil  and  Delitzsch  regard  as  explain- 
ing our  passage  and  explained  by  it.  Add  to 
this  that  an  article  of  so  much  importance 
would  hardly  be  omitted  in  the  enumeration 
of  the  leading  objects  in  the  sanctuary,  while 
in  the  general  rhetorical  statement  of  the 
author  the  local  relation  is  of  much  less  im- 
portance than  the  moral,  and  we  can  hardly 
doubt  that  the  'altar  of  incense'  and  not  the 
'censer'  is  the  object  here  spoken  of.  (For  a 
fuller  discussion  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Bleek,  Delitzsch,  Alford,  Moll,  Farrar.)  And 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  (Exod.  25  :  10,  seq.; 
37:  1,  seq.)  overlaid  round  about,  covered 
round  on  all  sides,  (within  and  without) 
with  gold.  A  chest  of  acacia  wood,  con- 
tained not  only  in  the  inner  sanctuary  of  the 
tabernacle,  but  also  of  the  temple  of  Solomon, 
from  which  it  disappeared  when  the  temple 
was  sacked  by  the  Chaldeans.  In  2  Mace.  2: 
1-8,  the  tabernacle,  the  ark,  and  the  altar 
of  incense  are  classed  together.  Wherein 
(that  is,  in  the  ark)  was  the  (a)  golden 
pot  having  the  manna.     (Exod.  i6:  32-36.)    The 


1  The  adjective  is  not  ayia  feminine  agreeing  with 
a-Krivrj,  but  otyia  neuter  plural,  holy  things,  something 
holy. 

2 The  form  dva-iaarripioi',  with  or  without  additions, 
is  indeed  used  in  the  Septuagiut  for  the  incense  altar, 


but  on  the'  other  hand,  flvjitiaT^pioi'  became  common  in 
later  Hellenistic  writers,  and  is  found  in  Philo,  Jo- 
sephus,  Origen,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  etc.,  and  might, 
therefore,  well  be  so  used  by  our  author. 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


107 


5  And  over  it  the  cherubim  of  glory  shadowing  the 
mercy  scat ;  of  which  wc  cannot  now  speak  particularly. 

6  Mow  when  these  thiugs  were  tlius  oidaiued,  the 
priests  went  always  into  the  lirst  tabernacle,  accomplish- 
ing the  service  oj  God. 


5  tables  of  the  covenant ;  and  above  it  cherubim  of 
glory   overshadowing  'the    luercy-seat;    of    wliicb 

6  things  we  cannot  now  speak  severally.  Now  these 
things  having  been  thus  prepared,  tlie  priests  go  iu 
continually  into  the  first  tabernacle,  accomplishing 


1  Gr.  the  propitiatory. 


'golden'  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  but  is  added 
by  the  Septuagint.  It  is  also  not  expressly 
stated  in  Exodus  that  it  was  to  be  placed 
in  the  ark,  but  laid  up  'before  the  Lord' 
from  which  the  other  was  inferred,  and  was  so 
understood  by  the   Kabbins.     The  statement 

(l  King38:9;  2Chrou.6:  10)  that   nothing    WaS    fouud 

in  the  ark  in  the  temple  but  the  tables  of  the 
covenant,  proves  nothing  in  regard  to  the 
original  contents  of  the  ark  under  Moses,  un- 
less indeed,  that  something  else  \i&?,  expected  io 
be  found  there,  and  in  so  far  it  is  confirmatory 
of  our  passage.  And  Aaron's  rod  that 
XniAAeA  {blossomed).  (Num.  u:  i-n.)  This  was 
to  be  laid  up  "before  the  testimony,"  that  is, 
before  the  tables  of  the  covenant  (E.vod.  3i:  is), 
whence  the  natural  inference  that  it  was  in 
the  ark.  And  the  tables  of  the  covenant 
— the  tables  of  stone  which  contained  the  Ten 
Commandments  (Exod.25:i6)  were  to  be  placed 
in  the  ark,  which,  from  its  containing  them, 
was  called  the  ark  of  the  covenant. 

5.  And  over  (above)  it — on  the  massive 
golden  cover  of  the  ark — the  cherubim  of 
glory,  the  symbolical  fourfold  animal  forms, 
at  its  two  extremities,  facing  each  other,  and 
looking  down  upon  the  cover  which  they 
overshadowed  with  their  outspread  wings. 
They  were  called  "cherubim  of  glory,"  not 
so  much  probably  on  account  of  their  own 
glorious  and  shining  forms,  wrought  of  fine 
gold,  as  because  they  ministered  to  the  glo- 
rious   Being   who  was   "enthroned   between 

tlie       cherubim."  (l  Sam.  4:  4;  Ps.  99:  l;   Isa.  66:  l.) 

Shadowing  the  mercy  seat.  Shadowing 
with  their  wings  the  massive  covering  of  the 
ark,  which  covering,  interposed,  as  it  were, 
between  the  glory  of  God  above  and  the 
tables  of  the  covenant  below,  when  sprinkled 
over  with  the  blood  of  the  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice, was  transformed  from  a  cover  for  that 
law  which  worketh  the  wrath  of  God  into  a 
symbol  of  propitiation,  a  mercy  seat,  and 
thus,  as  the  divine  footstool,  became  the  place 
where  the  God  of  the  covenant  could  and  did 
hold  converse  with  the  people  of  the  cove- 
nant. (Kxod.  '25:  22;  Lev.  16:2.)  Of  (concerning) 
which  things  (not  the  cherubim  merely,  but 


all  the  objects  connected  with  the  sanctuary) 
we  cannot  now  speak  particularly  [sever- 
ally). This  general  notice  of  tljeni  answered 
the  writer's  purpose.  But  why  has  he  spoken 
of  these  details,  which  have  no  essential  rela- 
tion to  the  argument?  We  may  answer  that 
in  describing  the  interior  of  the  tabernacle  it 
was  natural  to  mention  briefly  its  ciiief  objects 
of  interest;  but  the  especial  purpose  of  tlie 
mention  probably  was — by  showing  with  what 
objects  of  sacred  interest  the  earthly  taber- 
nacle was  furnished,  and  thus  with  what  dig- 
nity invested — to  enhance  the  glory  which 
must  invest  the  upper  and  true,  the  'greater 
and  more  perfect'  tabernacle. 

{g^  Now  in  the  outer  sanctuary  the  priests 
performed  constant  ministrations,  but  into  this 
innersanctuary  the  high  priest  wentalone  once 
a  year,  7iot  without  blood— he  carried  in  there 
the  blood  of  slaughtered  victims,  symbolically, 
though  not  really  expiatory "of  sin.     (6-10.) 

6.  Now  when  these,  etc.,  and  these  things 
having  been  thus  arranged,  into  the  first  tab- 
ernacle, indeed,  the  priests  continually  enter 
acconijylishing  the  services.  Of  what  time  is 
the  author  speaking?  Of  the  time  now  actu- 
ally present  to  himself  and  his  readers,  and  of 
the  temple  worship  now  actually  existing;  or 
does  he  refer  to  the  origin  of  the  Levitical  in- 
stitutions, and  to  the  state  of  things  connected 
with  the  tabernacle  itself?  It  seems  to  me 
most  clearly  the  latter.  I  do  not  see  how  we 
can  escape  from  the  obvious,  and  indeed 
express,  import  of  the  language  of  this  passage, 
'"These  things  having  been  thus  arranged, 
into  the  first  tabernacle,  indeed,  the  priests 
continually  enter."  It  represents  the  one  as 
immediately  and  naturally  following  upon  the 
other,  and  the  reference  of  the  whole  to  the 
tabernacle  worship  is  unmistakably  clear. 
Nor  can  anything  be  more  natural  than  that 
the  author  in  describing  the  arrangements  of 
the  Old  Covenant  worship  should  go  back  to 
the  primitive  forms  of  the  institution,  and 
exhibit  them  as  they  originally  came  fresh 
from  the  prescription  of  .lehovah.  Nor  is  tliis 
throwing  back  of  himself  into  the  pa.«t  in  the 
slightest  degree  uncommon  or  unnatural.     It 


108                                                 HEBREWS. 

[Ch.  IX. 

7  But  into  the  second  went  the  high  priest  alone  once  |    7  the  services ; 

but  into  the  second  the  high  priest 

is  one  of  the  most  frequent  of  figures,  and  is 
nowhere  more  appropriate  than  precisely  in 
the  present  case.  I  do  not,  then,  I  confess,  see 
how  able  commentators  (as  Liinemann, 
Delitzsch,  Alford)  can  suppose  that  the  author 
is  here  speaking  chronologically  of  the  temple 
service  as  actually  existing  in  his  own  time: 
how  he  can  be  supposed  to  have  passed  with  so 
abrupt  a  bound,  from  his  elaborate  description 
of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle,  and  that  too  with 
such  a  phrase  as,  "And  these  things  having 
been  thus  arranged,"  to  the  temple  worship  of 
his  own  day.  And  this  the  more  from  the 
fact  that  the  temple  worship  of  his  day,  if  ex- 
isting at  all  (as  we  suppose  it  was),  existed 
illegitimately.  The  True  Priest  had  come  and 
displaced  the  old.  The  true  sacrifice  had 
been  offered,  and  nullified  the  oflSce  of  the  old 
sacrifices.  Christ  had  already  entered  into  the 
true  tabernacle,  had  rent  at  his  death  the  vail 
which  separates  the  outer  from  the  inner 
sanctuary,  and  had  abolished  forever  that 
state  of  things  which  that  vail  and  that  taber- 
nacle typified.  •To  suppose  then  that  the 
author  has  reference  chronologically  to  the 
time  now  existing  to  himself  and  his  readers, 
is  to  throw  the  whole  passage  into  inextricable 
confusion.  For  nothing  can  be  clearer  than 
that  he  is  describing  the  normal  state  of  things 
under  the  Old  Covenant,  and  the  old  priest- 
hood. He  is  showing  its  significance  and  its 
imperfections.  He  is  showing  that  it  symbol- 
ized a  state  of  things  which  was  to  be  done 
away  by  the  sacrifice  and  Priest  of  the  New 
Covenant.  But  that  sacrifice  has  now  been 
t)ffered :  that  Priest  has  now  taken  his  place  in 
the  heavenly  sanctuary ;  the  rites  of  Judaism 
have  but  a  waning,  doubtful,  and  illegitimate 
existence.  According  to  the  interpretation 
which  I  am  opposing,  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not 
(ver.  8)  even  yet  in  the  time  of  the  author, 
shown  the  way  into  the  Holiest  of  All,  which, 
however,  most  assuredly  was  made  manifest 
with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Verses  9,  10,  also  clearly  point  to  a  normal, 
established  condition  of  things  before  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  and  one  which  was  to  be  done 
away  by  his  coming.  The  whole  passage,  there- 
fore, from  ver.  1  to  ver.  10  must,  it  seems  to 
me,  be  interpreted  of  the  tabernacle  worship  as 
originally  ordained  by  God,  and  instituted  by 


Moses;  simply  because  the  author  chooses  to 
take  Judaism  in  its  original  and  purest  form  ; 
and  to  him  the  subsequent  transfer  of  the  ser- 
vice of  the  tabernacle  to  the  temple  is  a  thing 
of  no  moment.  He  is  not  dealing  with  the 
successive,  chronological  stages  of  Judaism  ; 
he  simply  takes  it  in  its  primitive,  normal, 
character.  To  charge  him  with  ignorance  of 
the  transfer  of  the  tabernacle  to  the  temple 
service,  as  Bleek  and  others  have  done ;  or 
with  ignorance  of  the  actual  state  of  things,  as 
not  knowing  that  the  original  contents  of  the 
ark  did  not  exist  in  the  later  temple,  is  simply 
to  misconceive  utterly  his  point  of  view,  and 
then  make  the  ignorance  of  the  interpreter  the 
ground  for  an  imputation  of  ignorance  on  the 
author.  For  this  oft-repeated  charge  against 
the  author  of  ignorance  regarding  the  arrange- 
ments of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  there  is  not 
in  this  passage,  carefully  examined,  the 
shadow  of  a  ground.  He  has  made  no  ap- 
proach to  an  intimation  that  the  actual  taber- 
nacle service  existed  in  his  own  day,  and  far 
less,  that  the  original  contents  of  the  tabernacle 
were  still  existing  either  in  tabernacle  or 
temple.  By  a  natural  and  beautiful  figure  he 
transports  himself  back  into  the  past,  sketches 
in  a  few  strong  lines  the  ancient  tabernacle  in 
its  material  splendor,  then  in  its  priestly  ser- 
vices, then  (9, 10)  in  its  symbolical  significance  ; 
and  not  one  word,  not  a  liint,  regarding  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem,  as  of  course  every  Jew 
would  know  precisely  what  outward  but  non- 
essential modifications  that  original  tabernacle 
service  had  undergone.  I  would  add,  finally, 
that  in  treating  the  present  liere  as  simply  the 
historicrr I  present,  I  concur  with  Chrj'sostom, 
Theophylact,  Stein,  Bengel,  and  others. 

7.  But  into  the  second  [tabernacle],  once 
in  the  year,  alone,  enters  the  high  priest.  The 
lovers  of  fault-finding  have  here  again 
charged  error  upon  the  author,  because  in 
fact,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  the  high 
priest  entered  the  inner  sanctuary  at  least 
twice,  according  to  Lev.  16  :  12-16,  and  accord- 
ing to  Philo;  and  four  times,  according  to  the 
Talmud  and  the  Rabbins.  It  would  seem  an 
obvious  suggestion  that  the  mind  of  the  writer 
is  on  the  fact  that  but  on  a  single  day  nnd 
single  occasion  in  the  year  did  any  one,  and 
then  only  the  high  priest,  enter  this  interior 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


109 


every  year,  not  without  blood,  which  he  offered  for  him- 
self, and /or  the  errors  of  ihe  people: 

8  The  Holy  (ilio.st  this  signifying,  that  the  way  into 
the  holiest  of  all  was  not  yet  made  manifest,  while  as 
the  first  tabernacle  was  yet  standing: 


alone,  once  in  the  year,  not  without  blood,  which  he 

offereth  for  himstll',  and  for  the  •  errors  of  the  peo- 

8  pie:   the  Jloly  .spirit  this  signifying,  that  the  way 

into  the  holy  place  hath  not  ytt  been  made  manifest, 


1  Or.  ignorancf. 


tabernacle,  and  whether  at  this  single  time  he 
might  have  occasion  to  go  in  and  out  once, 
twice,  or  four  times  was  wholly  immaterial  to 
the  purpose,  and  substantial  accuracy,  of  the 
statement.  Its  spirit  is  fulfilled  in  the  fact 
that  his  entrance  into  it  was  confined  to  that 
single  daj'.  The  outer  tabernacle  was  fre- 
quented by  all  the  priests  in  their  daily  min- 
istrations :  the  inner  was  entered  only  on  one 
day  of  the  year,  and  then  by  the  high  priest 
alone.  Not  without  blood  which  he  offered 
for  (on  behalf  of)  himself  and  for  the 
errors  {offences)  of  the  people.  The  author 
hero  nearly  reaches  the  point  toward  which, 
from  8 :  3,  he  has  been  steadily  tending.  He 
there  undertook  to  show  what  our  great  High 
Priest  in  the  true  tabernacle  which  the  Lord 
pitched  and  not  man,  must  offer.  For  this  pur- 
pose he  has  looked  back  to  the  function  of  his 
earthly  type,  and  finds  that  the  high  priest 
entered  the  symbolical  presence  of  God  in  the 
Mosiiic  tabernacle  'not  ivithout  blood';  the 
offering  of  the  heavenly  High  Priest,  he  pro- 
ceeds presently  to  state,  must  be  blood  also.  He 
is  speaking  not  of  the  previous  sacrifice,  but  of 
the  bringing  of  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  into 
the  Most  Holy  Place  before  God.  The  blood 
of  the  slaughtered  victims  was  brought  in, 
and  sprinkled  once  upward,  and  seven  times 
downward  toward  the  mercy  seat,  and  over 
the  altar  of  incense,  and  was  poured  out  on 
tlie  altar  of  burnt  offering.  The  importance 
attached  to  the  entering  with  blood,  is  shown 
by  the  emphatic  form  of  the  statement,  'not 
without  blood,'  instead  of  the  direct  affirma- 
tion, with  blood.  Before  proceeding  to  his 
deduction  regarding  the  nature  of  Christ's 
offering,  the  author  yet  pauses  to  dwell  a 
moment  on  the  symbolical  significance  of  this 
exclusion  of  all  but  the  high  priest,  and  of 
liim  at  all  ordinary  times  from  the  inner 
sanctuary. 

8.  The  Holy  Ghost,  etc.,  the  Holy  Spirit 
showing  this — by  this  rare  and  solitary  en- 
trance— that  the  way  into  the  sanctuary  ;  not 
(as  Alford)  the  way  into  the  heavenly  sanctu- 
ary, which  would  make  a  confusion  of  the 
figure;  but  the  way  into  the  presence  of  God 


which  this  earthly  sanctuary  substantially 
denotes.  It  is  clear  that  so  long  as  only  the 
high  priest,  and  he  only  at  distant  intervals, 
can  enter  the  sanctuary,  so  long  the  way  into 
the  sanctuary  has  not  as  yet  been  strictly  laid 
open;  it  remains  substantially  hidden  and 
closed — hath  not  yet  been  made  manifest, 
while  the  first  tabernacle  is  yet  existing. 
Bengel,  Stuart,  and  some  others,  regard  'the 
first  tabernacle'  here  as  the  earlier,  or  Jewish 
tabernacle,  in  contradistinction  from  the  later 
or  true  tabernacle  into  which  Christ  has 
entered ;  but  without  doubt,  erroneously.  In 
the  first  place,  the  author  would  not  without 
a  good  reason  depart  from  his  previous  use 
of  'the  first'  verses  2,  6,  in  both  of  which  it 
denotes  the  first  in  locality,  that  which  was 
first  entered,  the  outer  tabernacle.  Secondly, 
according  to  his  conception  of  the  relation  of 
the  Mosaic  and  the  heavenly  tabernacle,  he 
would  not  have  called  the  former  the  first,  it 
being,  in  his  figurative  language,  but  a  copy 
of  the  archetypal,  original  heavenly  taber- 
nacle, and  therefore  not  the  first,  but  the 
second.  Thirdly,  the  idea  is  equally  well 
brought  out  by  giving  to  '  the  first  tabernacle' 
its  previous  signification.  It  is  indeed  true, 
that  the  way  into  the  real  presence  of  God, 
the  heavenly  sanctuary,  was  not  made  mani- 
fest, and  was  not  to  be  made  manifest  while 
the  Jewish  tabernacle  and  its  successor,  the 
temple,  yet  had  continuance.  For  so  long  as 
they  existed,  they  existed  as  a  part  and  a 
centre  of  that  Judaistic  sj'stem  which  was  but 
the  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  is  equally  well,  and 
even  more  forcibly  expressed  by  referring  the 
"first  tabernacle"  to  the  first  part  of  the 
Jewish  tabernacle,  in  distinction  from  the 
second.  For  what  made  that  ./Jr-s^  tabernacle? 
What  made  the  distinction  of  first  and  second 
tabernacles  at  all?  It  was  the  vail  hanging 
between  them,  and  shutting  out  the  first  from 
the  symbolical  presence  of  God.  So  long  as 
that  vail  hung  there  that  first  tabernacle  re- 
mained. When  the  vail  was  rent  at  the  death 
of  Christ  (the  vail  of  the  temple  answering  to 
the  vail  of  the  tabernacle),  the  distinction  was 


110 


HEBREWS. 


[Cn.  IX. 


9  Which  was  a,  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  |    9  while  as  the  first  tabernacle  is  yet  standing;  which. 


done  uway,  the  outer  tabernacle  was  no  more ; 
the  presence  of  God  was  equally  unvailed  to 
all  worshipers.  Finally,  the  ascribing  of 
these  arrangements,  or  rather  of  the  revela- 
tion made  by  them,  to  the  Holy  Spi7nt,  is  in 
accordance  with  the  fact  that  he  is  the  recog- 
nized Author  and  Source  of  all  proper  spiritual 
teachings.  Not  that  the  Holy  Spirit  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  other  persons  in  tlie  Trinity 
was  the  Author  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  but 
that  the  disclosure  of  truth  made  in  them,  as 
in  all  other  revelations  of  Scripture,  is  properly 
to  be  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Grod 
creates  and  governs,  and  God  prescribed  the 
arrangements  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  ;  Christ 
atones,  mediates,  and  when  on  earth,  like  the 
prophets,  outwardly  taught;  but  to  unvail 
truth  to  the  understanding,  and  write  it  on  the 
heart,  is  tlie  province  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
as  he  alone  gave  efficacy  to  the  instructions  of 
Jesus,  so  he  was  the  proper  Interpreter  of  the 
significance  of  the  Mosaic  institutions. 

9.  Which — the  first  or  outer  tabernacle  :  for 
to  this,  or  the  leading  previous  idea,  is  the 
more  natural  reference — is  a  figure  (or  para- 
ble, jrapa/SoAr},  a  laying  along  side  of,  a  com- 
parison, a  resemblance;  here  a  symbolical 
representation)  for  the  time  now  present  (or 
the  now  existing  period) — that  is,  the  period 
during  which  the  outer  tabernacle  remains 
with  its  imperfect  ritual,  indicating  that  the 
way  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  has  not  yet  been 
disclosed.  The  time  called  the  'existing'  or 
'  present'  time,  is  the  same  as  in  the  remainder 
of  the  passage,  and  is  not  the  time  now  present 
to  the  writer,  but  the  time  into  which  he  has 
in  thought  transfiorted  himself;  namely,  the 
time  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  of  the  tab- 
ernacle and  temple  worship.  To  take  any 
other  view  of  it  is  hopelessly  to  confuse  the 
passage.  To  refer  it  to  the  actual  existing 
time  of  the  writer  is  wholly  inconsistent  with 
the  facts  of  the  case  ;  for  now  the  time  of  that 
symbolical  service  has  passed  away;  the 
'time  of  rectification'  has  actually  come,  and 


the  tabernacle  and  temple  service  has  lost  its 
validity  and  its  significance.  Assuredly  the 
author  would  not  use  such  language  as  he 
employs  here  in  verses  8,  9,  10,  regarding  the 
mere  dying  remains  of  the  temple  service, 
which  dragged  out  a  tolerated  and  illegiti- 
mate existence  until  broken  up  by  the  final 
overthrow  of  the  Jewish  city  and  temple. 
He  clearly  has  reference  to  Judaism  as  a 
normal,  divinely  instituted,  divinely  per- 
petuated system  :  to  Judaism  in  all  its  original 
and  proper  force  and  significance  :  to  Judaism 
in  contrast  with  that  sj'stem  which  came  in 
with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
that  fulfilled  and  set  aside  its  shadowy  sym- 
bolical predecessor.  The  author  lived  in  the 
'time  of  rectification,'  and  we  cannot  con- 
found this  with  the  'existing  time'  in  which 
this  merely  symbolical  and  carnal  system 
had  sway,  without  violating  every  law  of 
interpretation.  It  may  indeed  well  be  that 
the  long  existence  through  centuries  of  that 
old  Mosaic  ritual;  that  its  actual  existence, 
though  in  a  dying  state,  in  the  time  of  the 
author  himself — may  have  rendered  more  easy 
and  natural  the  figure  by  which  he  repre- 
sents the  past  as  if  it  were  present ;  but  if 
so,  he  certainly  has  no  special  and  primary 
reference  to  the  present  time,  but  is  distinctly 
contrasting  a  system  which  belongs  properly 
to  the  past,  which  had  been  already  virtually 
and  substantially  displaced,  with  another 
system,  which  since  the  coming  of  Christ,  or 
at  least  since  his  ascension  to  the  throne  and 
presence  of  God,  has  been  fully  inaugurated, 
and  is  now  in  full  activity.  The  "now  exist- 
ing period,"  then,  is  not  the  actual,  but  the 
ideal  now,  the  period  into  which  the  author 
has  ideally  transported  himself,  in  which 
the  Old  Covenant  wjth  its  symbolical  sacri- 
fices and  priesthood  has  yet  unbroken  sway, 
and  the  outer  tabernacle  with  its  unremoved 
vail  yet  symbolizes  the  separation  of  man 
from  God,  which  can  be  removed  only  in 
Christ.*     One  remark   further.     The  signifi- 


ilt  will  be  seen  that  with  this  interpretation,  I  can 
attach  little  or  no  value  to  this  passage  as  indicating 
the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  Epistle,  whether 
before  or  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  I  grant, 
indeed,  that  the  passage  may  more  probably  have 
been   written   while  the   old    Levitical    worship   had 


yet  a  nominal  continuance,  though  I  concede  even  as 
much  as  that  with  hesitation,  for  I  certainly  see  no 
reason  of  weight  why  the  whole  passage  may  not  have 
been  written  after  the  entire  temple  service  had  passed 
away,  and  this  all  the  more  as  the  special  form  of  the 
Old  Covenant  service  upon  which   the  author  dwells, 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


Ill 


which  were  offoreil  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  could 
not  make  hiiu  that  did  the  service  perfect,  as  pertain- 
ing to  the  conscience; 

10  Which  slooil  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  Cheni  until 
the  time  of  reformation. 


i.i  a  figure  for  the  time  present;  according  to  which 
are  ottered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  tliai  cannot,  ad 
touciiiug  the  conscience,  make  the  worshipper  per- 
10  feet,  beiny  only  (with  meats  and  drinks  and  divers 
washings)  carnal  ordinances,  imimsed  until  a  lime 
of  reformation. 


calce  assigned  liere  to  the  outer  tabernacle, 
seems  etitirely  warranted  by  the  fact.  There 
was  no  more  expressive  fetiture  of  the  Old 
Covenant  arrangements  than  tliat  awful  vail, 
which  perpetually  symbolized  an  oflended, 
unappeased,  and  distant  God;  none  more  cal- 
culated to  keep  up  in  the  bosoms  of  the  wor- 
shipers the  sense  of  their  need  of  a  more 
efficacious  sacrifice  than  they  could  bring, 
and  of  a  higher  priesthood  than  that  which 
was  itself  almost  utterly  excluded  from  the 
presence  of  God,  and  which  could  not  bring  the 
people  near  at  all.  The  rending  of  that  vail, 
the  virtual  demolition  of  the  outer  sanctuary, 
is  also  the  one  grand  accompaniment  of  the 
crucifixion.  The  darkness,  the  earthquake, 
the  material  phenomena,  which  attended  that 
event  are  lost  in  that  opening  of  graves  which 
pointed  to  the  resurrection,  and  still  more  in 
that  rending  of  the  vail,  which  showed  that  a 
way  was  now  opened  by  which  men  could 
droio  near  to  God.  In  which,  etc.  According 
to  which  [similihide]  (Kae'riu),  or  at  which  time 
(Ka0'  ov)  •  for  eitlier  reading  mtikes  good  sense, 
although  with  Liinemann,  Delitzsch,  etc.,  I 
prefer  the  former.  Were  (are)  offered  both 
gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  cannot,  as  touch- 
ing the  conscience,  make  him  who  performs 
the  service  perfect.  By  'him  who  performs 
the  service'  is  here  meant,  not  the  priest,  but 
him  who  from  the  people  renders  service 
through  the  priests.  This  clause  explains 
how  it  is  that  the  outer  tabernacle  is  a  symbol 
for  its  period — (7i  symboL  not  of  its  period, 
though  this  would  be  true  enough,  and  not, 
perhaps,  an  impossible  interprettition,  but  a 
symbol  for  the  existing  time) — of  the  state 
of  things  as  between  God  and  the  worshipers 
— a  symbol  of  that  exclusion  frotn  God  which 
must  necessarily  exist  when  there  were  no 
sacrifices  that  could  truly  atone  for  sin  ;  none 
that  were  able  to  perfect  in  the  conscience 


him  who  served,  and  thus  enable  or  embolden 
him  to  dniw  near  to  God.  Under  that  state 
of  things  man  dared  not  approach  to  God; 
j  would  not  do  so  until  the  throne  of  justice 
had  really  been  sprinkled  over  witii  appeasing 
blood.  Of  the  inefficiency  of  these  sacrifices 
this  outer  ttibernitcle  was  a  standing  symbol. 
10.  Which  stood,  etc.,  [couditioned^]  mere- 
ly on  meats,  and  driiiks,  and  various  bathings, 
fleshly  ordinances  imjiosed  I'.ntil  the  season  of 
rectification.  With  this  construction  '  meats, 
drinks,'  etc.,  express  the  conditions  under 
which  those  '  gifts  and  sacrifices'  are  offered, 
denoting  the  whole  round  of  ceremonial  puri- 
fications and  ritual  prescription;,,  partly  such 
as  are  enjoined  by  the  law,  and  partly  (espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  drinks,  as  well  as  many  of 
the  ceremonies  of  bathing  and  cleansing.  See 
Matt.  23  :  24 ;  Kom.  14  :  21 ;  Acts  15  :  10,  28) 
such  as  had  sprung  up  and  been  established  by 
traditionary  usage.  There  is  thus  no  necessity 
(with  Bleek  and  De  Wette)  to  suppose  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Pas.sover,  or  to  the  feasts  after  the 
tliank  offerings,  which  would  be  quite  in- 
sufficient for  the  breadth  of  the  writer's  illus- 
tnition.  Carnal  ovAinnnces— ordinances  of 
flesh,  then  (literally  equivalent  to /f^'-sA/y  ordi- 
nances), refer  back  as  an  apposition  to  the 
'gifts  and  sacrifices,'  which,  enveloped  in 
ritualistic  observances,  and  having  large  ref- 
erence to  outward  things  as  eating,  drinks, 
bathings,  etc.,  might  be  denominated  'fleshly', 
and  were  'imposed'  on  the  people  until  the  time 
of  revision  and  rectification.  Imposed  on  (eVi- 
(cei>ei/a),  lying  upon,  laid  upon,  and  thus  pressing 
heavily  on  the  people,  is  a  word  probably  pur- 
posely selected,  answering  to  Acts  15  :  10,  the 
laying  upon  (en-iSei'i'ot)  the  necks  of  the  disciples 
a  yoke,  etc.  These  observances  were  btirden- 
some  in  their  variety  and  frequent  repetition, 
and  still  more  in  their  utter  impotence  to 
cleanse  r.nd  purify  the  spirit.     'The  time  of 


that  of  the  tabernacle,  had  long  since  passed  away,  of 
which  fact  to  assume  the  writer  to  be  ignorant,  would 
be  to  stultify  ourselves.  I  admit,  indeed,  that  there 
are  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle  indications  sufficient  to 
warrant  the  opinion  that  city  and  temple  were  yet 
standing,  although  they  are  not  perhaps  very  decisive. 


'  I  have  adopted  the  reading  Sixattunafa  instead  of 
StKaiioixaiTi  (with  De  Wette,  Liinemann,  Delitzsch,  A 1- 
ford,  etc.).  To  ini  I  give  the  signification, '  on  condition 
of,'  'conditioned  on'  (a  familiar  use  of  «iri  with  the 
dative). 


112 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


rectification,'  of  correction  and  setting  to  rights, 
the  Messianic  season,  the  time  when  the  one 
true  sacrifice  sweeps  away  all  these  numerous 
sacrifices  and  the  whole  burdensome  cere- 
monial in  which  they  are  imbedded; — that 
time  begins  with  the  coming,  at  least  with  the 
sacrifice  and  priesthood,  of  Christ.  Then  these 
observances,  these  sacrifices,  along  with  the 
first  or  outer  tabernacle  with  which  they  stand 
connected,  and  which  in  its  expressive  import 
declares  their  impotence,  are  swept  away  to- 
gether. The  rending  of  the  vail  has  merged 
the  first  tabernacle  in  the  second,  and  under 
the  conduct  of  the  great  High  Priest,  opened 
to  all  the  worshipers  the  way  to  the  presence 
of  God.  Of  course,  I  reject  wholly  the  idea  of 
Delitzsch,  Alford,  etc.,  that  this  time  of  revi- 
sion and  thorough  setting  to  rights  is  identi- 
cal with  the'  existing  season'  (xaipb^  ivetjTJiKiot) 
above.  I  regard  the  two  as  placed  in  direct 
contrast.  The  one  is  the  time  present  to  the 
conception  of  the  writer,  the  time  of  the  Old 
Covenant  and  the  material  tabernacle,  when 
symbol,  and  shadow,  and  fleshly  ordinances 
had  sway  :  the  other  is  the  now  existing  time, 
the  time  described  in  the  verses  following  since 
Christ  has  appeared,  the  efiicient  Priest  of 
good  things  to  come,  rending  the  vail,  opening 
the  way  to  God,  substituting  the  heavenly 
for  the  earthly  tabernacle,  and  his  own  blood 
in  priestly  sacrifice  and  oft'ering  for  that  of 
goats  and  heifers.  Whatever  else  in  the  Chris- 
tian's hope  may  be  future,  this  is  not.  It  has 
actually  come.  As  an  ideal  sj'stem  it  has 
ci>me  completely  in  the  sacrifice  and  media- 
tion of  Christ.  To  confound  it,  then,  with  that 
previous  time  of  sj'mbols  and  shadows  is  to 
overturn  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Epistle, 
and  all  this  because  we  fail  to  recognize  the 
natural  and  familiar  figure  of  the  historical 
present  for  the  past  in  verses  1-10,  a  figure  to 
which  his  reference  to  the  tabernacle  worship 
absolutely  forces  us.  I  will  say  once  more  it 
seems  to  me  inconceivable,  that,  if  the  writer 
were  referring  in  all  this  to  the  actual  present 
time,  he  would  have  made  no  single  allusion 
to  the  temple;  none  whatever  to  the  disap- 
pearance of  so  many  of  the  objects  which, 
although  in  the  tabernacle,  were  some  of  them 
never  in  the  first,  and  still  fewer  of  them  ever 
in  the  second  temple.  The  minuteness  with 
which  be  describes  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  and 
its  arrangements ;  the  close  connection  to  which 
his   language  points  between   those  arrange- 


ments and  the  consequent  priestly  service 
('these  things  having  been  thus  arranged,  the 
priests  enter,'  etc. — show  that  he  is  speaking  of 
the  Levitical  service  in  its  normal  character, 
as  legitimated  by  divine  appointment  and 
sanction,  not  as  dragging  out  a  miserable  ex- 
istence after  being  smitten  down  and  substan- 
tially done  away  in  Christ.  On  the  common 
hypothesis  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  we  can  de- 
fend the  author  from  those  charges  of  careless- 
ness orof  ignorance  which  (be  he  who  hemight 
have  been,  Paul,  Apollos,  Barnabas,  Luke, 
Clement,)  are  antecedently,  utterly  improba- 
ble, and  which  when  we  adopt  the  right  inter- 
pretation, recoil  upon  those  that  made  them. 

{h)  We  see,  then,  what  is  demanded  of  our 
High  Priest.  It\s  blood.  And  as  his  is  the  true, 
and  not  the  symbolical  priesthood,  as  he  is  in 
the  genuine,  and  not  the  copied  sanctuary,  he 
must  oifer  blood  that  is  really,  and  not  symboli- 
cally, cleansing.    He  brings  Ais  own.    (11-14.) 

The  author  reaches  now  the  solution  of  the 
problem  proposed  in  8:3;  namely,  to  deter- 
mine what  it  is  that  our  heavenly  High  Priest 
has  to  offer.  In  the  outer  earthly  sanctuary 
the  priests  minister  daily  with  various  offerings: 
into  the  second  sanctuary  the  high  priest  goes 
alone  once  a  year,  and  not  without  blood;  this 
jealous  exclusion  showing  that  the  way  into 
the  All-holy  has  not  yet  been  disclosed;  but 
this  condition  of  the  rare  and  solitary  entrance 
showing  how,  when  it  is  disclosed,  access  is  to 
be  secured  ;  namely,  by  blood :  by  blood  which 
will  perform,  really  and  effectually,  what  the 
blood  of  animals  performs  symbolically.  With 
this  comes  the  crown  and  consummation  of 
the  argument.  All,  from  this  point  on  to 
10  :  18  (the  close  of  the  argumentative  part  of 
the  Epistle)  is  in  illustration  of  this  one  thought, 
as  all  from  8  :  1  (where  the  discussion  of  the 
high  priesthood  commences)  is  preparatory  to 
it.  Thus  two  grand  ideas,  Christ  a  Melchise- 
dec  Priest,  holding  a  royal  and  perpetual 
priesthood,  and  Christ  an  Aaronic  High  Priest, 
bringing  his  efficacious  blood  into  the  heavenly 
sanctuary  ;  these  are  the  two  grand  points  on 
which  the  doctrinal  discussion  of  the  Epistle 
turns.  Without  the  priesthood  which,  after 
the  type  of  Melchisedec,  is  constituted  'after 
the  power  of  an  indestructible  life,'  the  high 
priesthood  would  be  unavailing :  without  the 
ii'oorftypified  in  the  Levitical  sacrifice,  the  Mel- 
chisedec priesthood,  though  majestic,  would 
be  barren.     The  two  united  give  us  a  High 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


113 


11  But  Christ  being  come  a  high  priest  of  good  things  j  11      But  Christ  having  conid  a  liigh  priest  of  '  the  good 
to  come,  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernaile,  nut  things  to  cunie,  through  the  gruater  and  more  per- 

made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  building;  feet  tabernacle,  not  made  wiih  hands,  that  is  to  say. 

I  12  not  of  this  creation,  nor  yet  through  the  blood  ol 

1  Some  kiicieat  autliorLies  read  the  good  tHingt  that  are  come. 


Priest  answering  all  our  needs,  able  to  com- 
mence and  carry  to  perfection  our  spiritual 
cleansing  and  salvation— able  to  bring  a  guilty 
soul,  ransomed  and  purified,  into  the  presence 
of  God. 

11.  But  Christ  being  come  {presenting 
himself)  equivalent  to,  being  raised  up,  ap- 
pearing on  the  theatre  of  the  world,  not,  prob- 
ably, '  presenting  himself  at  the  heavenly 
sanctuary,'  and  certainly  not  '  becoming 
High  Priest.' '  It  is  placed,  says  Delitzsch, 
emphatically  first,  as  marking,  in  his  coming, 
the  goal  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  the  turn- 
ing point  of  two  periods  of  sacred  history 
standing  related  to  each  other  as  prophecy  and 
fulfillment.  Thus  again  the  reference  is  not 
strictly  to  the  incnrnntion  of  Christ,  but  to 
his  coming  forioard  at  the  close  of  the  Old 
Economy  to  inaugurate  a  New  One,  and  com- 
ing forward  in  tiie  exercise  of  all  the  functions 
of  the  High  Priest  It  thus  marks  his  whole 
collective  work  as  Messiah  ;  his  incarnation, 
sacrificial  death,  ascension.  A  high  priest  of 
(the)  good  things  to  come.  Are  the  'good 
things'  of  which  Christ  is  the  High  Priest 
called  'to  come'  (/lieAAoi'Ta)  from  the  pointof  view 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  or  from  the  present  point  of 
view  of  the  believer  who  as  yet  is  saved  only  in 
hope  :  who  awaits  his  full  salvation  at  Christ's 
second  appearing  (9:28),  who  has  here  no  abiding 
city  but  seeks  one  to  come  (wdAis  /xcAAovo-a  13  :  14)  ? 
It  would  seem  at  first  more  natural  to  regard  the 
author  as  speaking  of  Christ's  high  priesthood 
as  the  fulfillment  of  the  good  things  which 
did  not  yet  exist,  but  were  only  promised  and 
symbolized  under  Judaism,  and  this  idea  may 
perhaps  be  secondarily  in  his  mind.  Still  the 
second  idea  is  (with  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Liine- 
mann,  Delitzsch,  etc.,)  doubtless  the  true  one. 
They  are  the  good  things  future  from  the  New 
Testament  point  of  view.  The  Mosaic  tiiber- 
iiacle  had  its  sanctuary',  belongiyig  to  the  world 
((coo-MKoc) :  the  system  of  which  it  was  the  centre 
consisted  of  meats,  and  drinks,  and  carnal  ordi- 
nances, earthly,  temporal,  and  transient.  But 
the  Christian's  High  Priest  is  a  High  Priest  of 
good  things  to  come,  of  a  future,  spiritual  sal- 


vation, of  iieavenly  blessings  as  yet  possessed 
but  in  hope.  A I  ford  tiierefore  errs  in  alleg- 
ing that  the  clause  '  high  priest  of  good  things 
to  come,'  describes  a  quality  common  both  to 
the  Jewish  high  priest  and  to  Christ;  only 
that  the  import  of  the  phrase  was  much 
scantier  in  the  one  case,  and  much  fuller  in 
the  other.  In  a  certain  sense,  of  course,  such 
a  statement  might  be  made.  The  seeds  of  the 
New  Dispensation  were  in  the  Old.  But  it 
would  reverse  all  the  author's  habits  of  con- 
ception and  language  to  designate  a  Jewish 
high  priest  along  with  Christ,  "a  high  priest 
of  good  things  to  come."  The  very  phrase 
which  Alford  cites  disproves  it.  The  law  had 
but  the  shadoiv  of  good  things  to  come,  and. 
therefore  the  priest  of  the  law  was  but  a  priest 
of  shadows;  he  ministered  to  that  tabernacle 
\.hich  was  but  a  copy  and  shadow  of  the 
heavenly.  The  author  is  here  speaking  con- 
trastively  of  Christ's  higher  priesthood,  as 
ministering  and  bestowing  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings which  were  utterly  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  Levitical:  this  could  faintly  outline  ami 
symbolize  them ;  but  could  by  no  means  bestoxy 
them.  Real  pardon,  complete  redemption, 
nearness  and  assimilation  to  God,  promised 
now  potentially,  but  fully  only  in  the  future, 
are  the  "coming  good  things  of  which  Christ 
is  High  Priest." 

Through  a  (^Ae)  greater  and  more  perfect 
tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is 
to  say,  not  of  this  building,  c?er7i'io«.  We 
here  (as  at  8:  2)  meet  the  question  :  "What  is 
the  tabernacle  referred  to  by  the  author?"  Is 
it  the  first  or  outer  tabernacle,  as  distinguished 
from  the  inner  or  Holy  of  Holies,  and  if  so  (as 
assumed  by  nearly  all  commentators),  then 
what  did  that  outer  tabernacle  represent? 
Through  what  did  Christ  pass,  as  the  greater 
and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  on  his  way  into 
the  heave- ly  Holy  of  Holies?  I  have  already 
considered  the  question  at  some  length  at  8  :  2, 
and  might  to  that  refer  the  reader  for  the  ex- 
clusive discussion.  The  importance  of  the 
topic,  however,  and  the  almost  unanimous 
concurrence  of  interpreters  in  what  seems  to 


1  This  would  require  yevd/u.evos  instead  of  irapaytvontviK. 


114 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


me  a  grave  error,  may  justify  some  additional 
observations. 

I  do  not  believe  (and  in  this  I  have  the 
authority  of  Moll)  that  the  author,  either 
here,  or  at  8  :  2,  or  anywhere  in  his  refer- 
ence to  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  makes  refer- 
ence to  the  first,  or  outer  tabernacle,  at  all. 
I  do  not  believe  that  he  conceives  of  it  as 
having  any  existence  under  the  Spiritual  Dis- 
pensation. Certainly  there  is  nothing  in  the 
language,  either  at  8:  2  or  here,  which  would 
lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  refers  rather  to  a 
part  of  the  tabernacle  than  to  the  whole  of  it. 
The  "greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle, 
not  made  with  hands,"  would  seem  to  be  con- 
trasted as  a  whole,  with  tlie  smaller,  imperfect, 
and  material  earthly  structure.  Apart  from 
the  fact  that  Clirist  went  tlirough  it  into  the 
sanctuary,  none  would  dream  of  applying  the 
description  to  but  -Apart,  and  that  confessedly 
the  far  inferior  part  of  that  tabernacle.  Had 
the  expression  been  indefinite,  'a  greater  and 
more  perfect,'  etc.,  instead  of  '■  the  greater,' 
it  could  be  more  easily  referred  to  a  part  of 
either  tabernacle.  Again  (with  Moll),  to 
what  purpose  the  emphatic  words,  '  through 
the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,'  if  it 
referred  to  but  some  mere  passage  way  to  the 
heavenly  tabernacle,  and  not  to  the  heavenly 
tabernacle  itself?  The  application  of  the 
terms,  'greater  and  more  perfect,'  as  applied 
to  the  heavenly  tabernacle  as  a  whole,  in  con- 
trast with  the  earthly,  we  can  easily  under- 
stand ;  out  see  no  reason  for  this  emphasizing 
pf  that  which  was  but  a  mere  passage  way  to 
the  interior  sanctuary. 

.  But  the  case  appears  still  stronger  when 
we  ask,  "  What  is  this  greater  and  more  per- 
fect outer  tabernacle,  through  which  our 
High  Priest  passes  to  the  inner?"  And  we 
hear  the  responses  of  interpreters — "The 
lower  and  visible  heavens;"  "the  heaven  of 
glorified  saints;  "  "the  earthly  life  of  Christ;  " 
"the  human  body  of  Christ;"  "his  glorified 
body;"  "his  mj-stical  body," — these  are  chief 
among  the  numerous  answers  given  to  this 
difficult  question.  But  however  true  it  might 
be,  that  in  some  sort  of  sense  either  one  of 
these  might  be  the  passage  way  to  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,  neither  of  them  has  the 
slightest  support  in  the  languageof  the  author ; 
neither  of  them  is  anything  better  than  pure 
conjecture :  and  neither,  of  them  (nor  can  I  ex- 


cept that  of  Delitzsch,  'the  heaven  of  glorified 
saints')  has  any  support  in  the  significance 
of  the  outer  earthly  tabernacle,  or  stands  in 
any  sort  of  relation  to  it.  That  outer  taber- 
nacle had  one  single  special  purpose  and  im- 
port. It  did  not  represent  the  visible  heavens, 
nor  the  heaven  of  the  blessed,  nor  the  human 
body,  nor  the  earthly  life,  nor  the  glorified 
body,  nor  the  mystical  body  of  Christ.  Its 
import  is  expressly  given  by  the  author.  It 
was  the  symbol  and  likeness  for  the  time  then 
existing,  in  which  conscious  sin  and  guilt, 
united  with  a  carnal  ritual  that  had  no  expi- 
atory and  cleansing  power,  kept  men  at  a 
distance  from  God.  It  was  a  symbol  of  imper- 
fection. It  was  the  grand  central  feature,  the 
very  core,  so  to  speak,  of  the  shadowy  Leviti- 
cal  Dispensation.  The  Holy  Ghost  signified 
by  solemn  and  expressive  symbol  so  long  as 
this  'first'  or  outer  tabernacle  'had  position,' 
that  the  way  into  the  true  sanctuary  had 
not  yet  been  disclosed.  Its  destiny  then  was 
obvious.  If  the  way  into  the  Holiest  of  All 
was  not  made  manifest  while  it  remained,  a 
condition  of  the  disclosing  of  that  way  must  be 
its  annihilation.  And  such  was  the  fact.  The 
high  priestly  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  destroyed  it. 
His  death  rent  the  symbolical  vail,  and  merged 
the  outer  and  inner  tabernacle  into  one. 
When  Christ  therefore  ascended  and  entered 
into  the  heavenly  Holy  of  Holies,  he  did  not 
pass  through  the  outer  tabernacle,  because  he 
could  not.  It  had  ceased  to  exist.  His  own 
death  had  done  it  away  forever,  in  doing  away 
with  that  state  of  things  which  it  symbolized. 
To  refit  it,  and  to  place  it  in  the  heavens,  is  to  . 
ignore  the  cardinal  imperfection  of  the  Old, 
and  the  vital  fact  and  prerogative  of  the  New 
Economy.  It  is  to  repair  and  rehang  the  rent 
vail  of  the  temple. 

But  are  we  not  going  directly  counter  to  that 
statement  of  the  author,  in  which  he  declares 
that  the  earthly  tabernacle  was  a  copy  of  the 
heavenly,  citing  in  confirmation  the  language : 
"See  that  thou  make  all  things  after  the  pattern 
shown  to  thee  in  the  mount"?  In  regard  to 
this,  I  again  reply,  that  the  original  import  of 
this  language  can  of  course  have  been  nothing 
more  than  that  Moses  should  exactly  copy 
the  model  which  God  had  given  to  him  on 
Sinai.  Our  author  makes  a  purely  figurative 
application  of  that  passage,  as  a  quasi  proof  or 
illustration  of  his  doctrine,  that  the  true  arche- 


Ch.  IX  ] 


HEBREWS. 


115 


12  Neither  by  (he  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by 
his  own  blood  he  entered  in  unce  into  the  holy  place, 
having  obtained  eternal  redemption /o>'  us. 


goats  and  calves,  but  through  his  own  blood,  entered 
in  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained 


typal  tabernacle  is  in  heaven  and  not  on  earth  ; 
that  the  true  high  priest  is  Christ  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,  and  nut  Atiron  in  the 
earthly.  But  that  he  meant  anything  more  by 
it;  that  he  meant  that  there  was  anything  in 
the  heavenly  arrangements  actually  corre- 
sponding to  the  outer  or  even  to  the  inner 
Uibernacle,— seems  wholly  void  of  probabil- 
ity. I  can  scarcely  conceive  that  he  meant 
anything  more  than  that  Christ  has  the  true 
divine  high  priesthood  of  which  the  Levitical 
high  priesthood  is  but  the  type  and  copy,  and 
therefore  in  figurative  language  it  is  natural  to 
say  that  he  ministers  in  the  true  heavenly 
tabernacle  of  which  that  is  the  earthly  copy 
and  semblance.  Thus,  'the  true  tabernacle 
which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man,'  and 
'the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not 
made  with  hands,  that  is,  not  of  this  creation,' 
both  mean  substantially  the  same  thing,  and 
both  refer  not  to  the  outer  tabernacle  dis- 
tinctively, but  simply  to  Christ's  spiritual 
priestly  service  in  the  presence  of  God;  they 
belong  to  the  heavenly  Sion,  and  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  in  comparison  with  the  earthly 
Sinai,  and  the  earthly  Jerusalem.  (12:2.!.) 
The  New  Testament  tabernacle  is  among 
the  spiritual  existences  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant, and  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  two 
emphatic  characterizations  of  its  spiritual  and 
transcendent  dignity  in  our  author  should 
have  reference,  not  to  the  whole  tabernacle,  or 
the  tabernacle  in  its  noblest  features,  but  only 
to  that  part  of  it  which  symbolized  the  imper- 
fection and  powerlessnessof  the  economy  with 
which  it  stood  connected. 

How,  then,  explain  the  construction  'through 
the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle  en- 
tered into  the  sanctuary'?  We  may  con- 
struct it  in  either  one  of  twt)  ways.  We 
may  connect  it  (with  Moll)  with  the  pre- 
ceding: 'Christ  is  an  high  priest  (ipxtepev?), 
through  (that  is,  by  means  of)  the  greater  and 
more  perfect  sanctuary.'  This  is  explained  by 
8:  4,  5,  where  we  are  told  that  if  Christ  were 
on  earth  he  could  not  be  a  priest,  there  being 
a  sacerdotal  order  already  to  perform  the  ser- 
vices of  the  law;  and  therefore  he  could  be  a 
priest  only  as  he  could  minister  in  the 
heavenly  and  archetypal  tabernacle,  and  thus 


could  be  a  priest  only  through  that  tabernacle. 
Or  there  is  no  serious  difflculty,  I  think,  in 
taking  the  through  (5t<i)  locally,  and  connect- 
ing it  with  the  following  verb  entered  (elo-^Aeei/). 
Regarding  the  heavenly  tabernacle  under  the 
figure  of  an  edifice  in  which  is  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  Christ  might  be  said  in  a  general  way 
to  enter  through  that  greater  and  more  per- 
fect tabernacle,  that  is,  to  enter  through  its 
door,  through  its  entrance,  into  the  sanctuary, 
and  thus  the  author  not  mean  to  affirm 
anything  in  that  tabernacle  corresponding  to 
the  outer  tabernacle  on  earth.  Of  these  two 
constructions,  we  may  add  that  the  former 
seems  favored  by  ver.  12,  "nor  through  the 
blood,"  etc.,  which  it  is  also  quite  as  natural 
and  perhaps  more  so,  to  construct  with  '  high 
priest^  (apx'fp«'^s)- 

12.  Neither  by  (and  not  through)  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but,  through  his  own 
blood.  This  clause  may,  as  just  observed,  be 
constructed  (as  by  Moll)  with  the  preceding 
'high  priest' — a  high  priest  through  the  greater 
and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  and  a  high  priest 
not  through  the  blood,  etc.  —  denoting  the 
necessary  conditions  of  Christ's  high  priest- 
hood, or  it  may  be  connected  with  the  follow- 
ing verb  'entered'  («;<r^9e>'),  and  denote  that 
through  which,  or  with  which,  Christ  as  High 
Priest  entered  the  heavenly  sanctuary.  The 
Levitical  high  priest  entered  the  earthly  one 
both  by  means  of  and  with  the  blood  of  goats 
and  heifers:  Christ  entered  the  heavenly  one 
through,  though  not  strictly  with,  his  f)wn 
blood.  Probably,  therefore,  the  prcjtosition  is 
carefully  chosen  as  one  applicable  (as  vvv  with 
would  not  have  been)  both  to  the  entrance  of 
the  typical  and  the  antitypical  High  Priest. 
The  author  shrinks  from  the  harshness  of 
saying  that  Christ  entered  the  presence  of  God 
with  his  own  blood,  but  says  through,  or  by 
means  of  it. 

The  German  commentators,  indeed,  dis- 
cuss at  length  the  question  of  the  way  in 
which  Christ  can  be  said  to  have  gone  into 
the  All-holy  Place  with  or  by  liis  own  blood. 
They  inquire  whether  the  blood  which  he  shed 
on  the  cross  was  wasted  on  the  ground,  or 
gathered  up,  as  too  precious  to  be  lost,  and 
restored  to  his  body ;  or  whether  those  drops 


116 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


WTe  suffered  to  sink  into  the  ground  in  expia- 
tion of  the  curse,  and  the  drops  remaining  in 
Ilia  body  were  reanimated  along  with  it  (so 
Delitzsch);  and  whether  he  accordingly  entered 
heaven  with  a  glorified  body  which  contains 
blood  (Delitzsch),  or  without  blood  (Hofniann). 
To  me,  I  confess,  these  speculations  seem,  if 
not  utterly  idle  and  vain,  and  an  almost  pre- 
sumptuous prying  into  inscrutable  mysteries, 
to  have  at  least  no  important  bearing  on  the 
passage  before  us.  I  do  not  see  any  necessity 
for  supposing  that  the  writer  conceives  of 
Christ  as  entering  the  heavenly  tabernacle 
with  actual  blood.  This  part  of  the  represen- 
tation (if  indeed  it  is  made  at  all)  must  be 
purely  figurative.  There  must  be  a  slaught- 
ered victim,  and  in  the  symbolical  Levitical 
service  the  blood  of  this  victim  is  carried  into 
the  sanctuary,  and  sprinkled  toward  the  mercy 
seat,  and  poured  out  on  the  altar  of  burnt 
offering.  This  is  a  vivid  reminder  of  the 
necessity  of  blood — that  is,  of  the  necessity  of 
death,  of  a  life  rendered  up  in  expiation  of  the 
sins  of  men.  But  is  not  all  its  essential  signifi- 
cance realized  when  Christ  pours  out  his  life 
on  the  cross,  and  then  ascends  to  appear  in  the 
presence  of  God  for  us?  Does  not  the  merely 
formal  similitude  end  here?  Was  there  anj' 
virtue  in  this  blood  carried  into  the  sanctuary', 
except  as  it  stood  connected  with  the  atoning 
death?  And  has  not  Christ  performed  all 
that  it  signified  when  he  has  shed  his  blood  on 
the  cross  for  man  ?  Must  he  carry,  in  any 
form,  actual  blood  into  the  presence  of  God  in 
the  discharge  of  his  priestly  functions?  To 
demand  this  is  to  make  the  parallel  run  on  all 
fours;  to  push  it  to  quite  an  unwarrantable 
extreme.  "What,  then,  became  of  the  spilled, 
or  the  unspilled,  blood  of  the  Redeemer's 
body — whether  it  was  all,  or  but  a  part  of  it 


shed — whether  what  was  shed  sank  into  the 
ground  inoperative,  or  with  expiatory  power, 
or  was  gathered  up  again  :  and,  in  short,  what 
was  the  relation  of  his  precious  earthly  blood 
to  his  present  glorified  body, — are  questions 
about  which  I  do  not  believe  that  we  can 
profitably  speculate,  and  which  certainly  I 
would  touch  with  the  utmost  reverence ;  but 
they  surely  stand  in  no  proper  relation  to  his 
high  priestly  function.  He  died  to  atone  for 
our  sins,  and  lives  with  God  to  carry  forward 
our  salvation  to  its  completion.' 

Entered  in,  etc.,  entered  once  for  all 
into  the  sanctuary.  Having  obtained, 
etc.,  obtaining  (eupdjuei'os),  finding,  procur- 
ing an  eternal  redemption — that  is,  by  liis 
entrance;  not  ''having  obtained*  previously 
to  his  entrance ;  the  clause  may  be  resolved 
by,  'entered  and  procured.'  There  lies,  I 
think,  in  the  middle  voice  no  such  em- 
phasis as  Alford  supposes.  The  symbolical 
atonement  of  the  Levitical  service  was  not 
complete  until  the  blood  of  the  victim  was 
carried  into  the  sanctuary.  The  expiatory 
work  of  Christ  was  not  complete  until  he 
himself  had  risen  from  the  tomb  and  entered 
in  glory  the  heavens,  as  it  were,  carrying  the 
blood  of  his  sacrifice  into  the  heavenly  pres- 
ence. As  before  said,  I  do  not  believe  that 
Christ's  carrying  actual  blood  into  his  heav- 
enly abode,  whether  in  or  out  of  his  spiritual 
body,  is  in  any  way  in  question  (except  as  far 
as  it  may  be  a  speculative  question  whether 
blood  is  essential  to  a  spiritual  body),  (i  Cor. 
15:50.)  He  bore  the  fruit,  the  eflBcacy  of  his 
atoning  death,  into  the  holy  presence.  He 
appeared  there  as  a  Lamb  that  had  been  sacri- 
ficed, and  taken  away  the  sins  of  the  world. 
The  e<em«^  redemption  or  ransom  corresponds 
to  the  single  entrance,  once  for  all.     The  high 


'  It  seem.s  scarcely  possible  to  avoid  the  conviction 
that  the  '  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not  made 
with  hands — that  is,  not  of  this  creation,'  and  '  his  own 
blood,'  are  intended  to  express  the  two  points  of  superi- 
ority of  Christ's  priestly  service  over  that  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood.  A  belter,  to  wit,  spiritual,  tabernacle  as 
against  the  material  earthly  one,  and  'his  own  blood  ' 
as  against  that  of  irrational  animals,  give  to  his  priestly 
ministry  an  incomparable  prerogative.  If  so,  then  it 
seems  equally  certain  that  the  tabernacle  thus  emphat- 
ically and  nobly  designated,  is  not  the  '  outer  taber- 
nacle,' whether  the  'lower  heavens'  or  whatever 
else  the  Ingenuity  of  interpreters  has  deviser],  but  the 
tnie  upper  tabernacle,  in  which  our  Lord  performs  his 


priestly  service,  that  which  the  Lord  pitched,  and  not 
man. 

2  So  here  as  in  many  other  cases  the  aorist  participle 

should  be  rendered,  not  as  ])erfcct,  to  which  it  is  often 

(virtually)    equivalent,  but  as  our  present,  which   is 

very  often  equal  to  the  Greek  aorist  (oftener,  perhaps, 

than  to  the  Greek  present).    Thus  in  our  Epistle  1  :  4, 

KpeiTTuiv  yevofxevoi;,  not  "  having  become,"  but  "  becora- 

I  ing,"  in  the  act  of  taking  his  seat;  so  here  not  "having 

procured,"  but  in  the  very  act  of  entering,  "procuring  " 

Examples  of  both  usages  are  abundant;  take  as  a  single 

:  case  of  the  aorist  usage,  Luke  23  :  46,  ifxovT^aas,  where 

I  even  the  Revised  Version  has,  I  think,very  unfortunately 

'■  "  when  he  had  cried,"  etc.,  instead  of  "  crying,"  etc. 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


117 


13  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
a^ilies  of  a  heifer  spriukliug  the  uucleau,  sauclitieih  to 
the  purifying  of  the  tlesh  ; 

14  How  luuch  more  shall  the  Mood  of  Christ,  who 
throuL'h  the  eternal  Spirit  ottered  hiiuiself  without  spot 
to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  Uod? 


13  eternal  redemption.  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and 
bulls,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  them  that 
have  been  detiled,  sanctify  unio  the  cleanness  of  ihe 

14  Hesh:  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  •  the  eternal  Spirit  ottered  himself  without 
blemish   unto  Uod,  cleanse  -your  conscience  from 


I  Or,  kit  eternal  spirit i  Or,  Man;  ancient  authorities  read  our. 


priest  entered  repeatedly — that  is,  in  connec- 
tion witli  repeated  sacrifices  and  repeated  pres- 
entation of  blood,  because  the  redemption 
which  he  procured  was  but  partial  and  tem- 
porary. Christ  needs  enter  but  once,  because 
it  is  in  connection  with  a  sacrifice  which  is 
completely  and  finally  efficacious.  The  price 
(AuTpof)  of  the  ransom  of  his  people — for  such 
is  the  aspect  under  which  their  salvation  is 
here  presented — is  paid  not,  as  held  by  some 
Greek  commentators,  to  Satan,  but  to  God. 

13.  Confirmation  of  this  latterstatement,  that 
his  entrance  procures  an  eternal  redemption, 
by  an  argument  from  the  less  to  the  greater. 
This  indeed  may  be  regarded  as  the  transition 
to  the  remaining  part  of  the  discussion  of 
Christ's  high  priesthood,  that;  namely,  which 
deals  with  the  necessity  and  the  efficacy  of  his 
oflTering.  From  the  tj'pical  arrangements  of 
the  law  the  author  inferred  what  must  be  the 
offering  which  Christ  as  High  Priest  in  the 
true  tabernacle  must  bring  to  God.  He  now 
shows  that  this  necessity  lay  in  the  nature  of 
the  case;  was  foreshadowed  in  all  the  puri- 
fications of  the  law  ('a-'"),  and  was  efficacious 
and  final.  (9:23;  lo:  is.)  He  begins  by  setting 
the  spiritual  nature  of  Christ's  sacrifice  over 
against  the  outward  and  ritualistic  nature  of  the 
Levitical  sacrifices.  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats  (Homer,  "Iliad,"  Lib.  1,  the 
priest  of  Apollo  designates  as  his  customary 
offerings  to  the  God)  and  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  the^n  who 
have  been  defiled.  See  Num.  ch.  19  for  a  de- 
scription of  the  rites  by  which  the  ashes  of  a 
spotted  heifer  that  had  not  borne  the  yoke, 
mingled  with  running  water,  are  sprinkled 
upon  those  who  were  defiled  by  contact  with 
a  dead  body,  and  cleanses  them.  '  Sprinkling 
them  that  have  been  defiled'  is  an  abrtipt  and 
elliptical  expression  (both  in  Greek  and  Eng- 
lish), for  'sprinkled  ui)on  them,'  etc.  Sanc- 
tifieth  to  the  purifying  (cleanness)  of  the 
flesh — that  is,  sanctifieth  xoith  reference  to 
the  cleanness  of  the  flesh,  or  sanctifieth  unto., 
marking  the  end,  that  to  which  the  sanctifica- 


tion  reaches.  The  conditional,  'If  the  blood 
sanctifieth,'  implies,  of  course,  that  it  docs. 
The  Levitical  rites  could  go  to  that  extent: 
they  could  cleanse  the  flesh  really  ;  the  spirit, 
symbolically. 

14.  How  much  more  shall  the  blood 
of  Christ,  who  through  the  {an)  eternal 
Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God.  The  argument  is  from  the  less  to  the 
greater,  both  quantitatively  and  qualitatively. 
The  power  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  to 
do  a  certain  work  is  conceded;  but  much 
more  is  the  blood  of  Christ  able  to  do  a  thing 
much  greater.  Such  is  the  value  attached  to 
the  blood  of  Christ,  in  comparison  with  tha^  of 
bulls  and  goats,  that  it  is  fiir  more  capable  of 
performing  this  incomparably  higher  cleans- 
ing which  it  undertakes,  than  that  of  these  to 
perforni  their  vastly  inferior  office.  The  blood 
of  goats  and  heifers  naturally  cleanses  out- 
wardly and  ceremonially  ;  the  blood  of  Christ 
naturally  cleanses  inwardly  and  spiritually. 
But  the  blood  of  Christ  is  as  much  more  effi- 
cacious within  its  higher  sphere  of  working, 
as  that  sphere  itself  is  higher  than  the  other. 

In  the  difficult  phrase,  'who  through  an 
eternal  Spirit  off^ered  himself  to  God,'  we 
may  remark,  first,  that  'himself  is,  in  a 
degree,  emphatic,  and  is  evidently  intended 
to  contrast  the  conscious,  voluntary,  self- 
determining  nature  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
with  the  unconscious,  involuntary,  compul- 
sory character  of  animal  sacrifices.  The 
animal  goes  blindly,  unwittingly  to  the 
slaughter,  at  the  mere  will  of  another ;  Christ, 
in  the  depths  of  his  intelligent  spiritual  na- 
ture, made  himself  an  oflTering  to  God.  The 
former,  then,  is  a  merely  animal  net,  and  as 
such,  has  but  a  merely  animal  virtue;  the 
latter  is  a  moral,  a  spiritual  act,  and  as  such 
has  a  moral  and  spiritual  efficacy.  And  as 
the  one  victim  is  oftered  by  virtue  of  its  per- 
ishing animal  life,  so  the  other  offers  himself 
by  virtue  of  an  eternal  spirit  which  dwells 
within  him,  and  itnparts  to  his  sacrifice  a 
spiritual  and  an  eternal  efficacy.    The  'Spirit* 


118 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


liore  spoken  of  was  not,  then,  the  'Holy  Sjnj'it' 
wliich  was  iibundantly  shed  forth  upon  our 
Lord.  The  term  clearly  points  to  a  power 
anil  impulse  acting  more  strictly  from  within, 
and  proceeding  properly  from  himself.  It 
was  not  his  jjiirely  human  spirit,  which  he 
shared  in  common  with  other  men;  it  was 
not,  I  think,  his  })urely  divine  nature,  which, 
before  his  incarnation,  had  consented  to  his 
sacrilice,  and  whose  j)resence  was  certainly 
necessary  to  the  efficacy  of  his  offering.  It 
involves,  I  conceive,  that  blending  of  liis 
divine  nature  with  his  human  personality, 
which  forms  the  mystery  of  his  being,  and 
which  gives,  even  to  his  divine  acts,  a  certain 
element  of  humanity,  and  to  his  human  acts 
a  certain  element  of  the  divine.  It  is,  I 
think,  this  mysterious  union  in  which  consists 
that  "spirit  of  holiness,"  by  virtue  of  which 
lie  was  declared  "the  Son  of  God  with  power," 
on  account  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
It  is  by  virtue  of  this  that,  in  contrast  with 
the  first  Adam,  who  became  a  "living  soul," 
he,  the  second  Adam,  became  a  "life-giving 
Spirit."  It  was  tluis  that,  though  "put  to 
death  in  the  flesh,  he  was  made  alive  in  the 
spirit."  In  all  these  cases  he  is  spoken  of  not 
as  purely  God,  not  as  purely  man.  In  his 
human  spirit,  as  the  seat  of  his  divine  nature 
and  sharing  its  eternity:  or  in  his  divine 
nature,  as  having  linked  itself  with,  and 
drawn  up  into  its  fellowship,  his  human  spirit, 
— by  virtue,  thus,  of  that  spiritual  nature 
which  partook,  at  once,  of  divinity  and  hu- 
manity,— he  offered  himself  to  God,  the  sacri- 
fice having  all  the  eflScacy  which  this  union 
alone  could  give  it.  The  language  is  strongly 
antithetical.  The  animal  sacj-ifice,  in  its 
animal  and  perishable  nature,  can  secure  but 
a  fleshly  and  a  transient  cleansing;  Christ's 
sacrifice,  through  an  eternaP  spirit,  can  secure 
a  spiritual  and  permanent  purification. 

I  may  add  that  here  the  'offering  up'  is 
not  Christ's  priestly  oftering  in  the  sanctuary, 
but  his  sacrificial  offering  on  the  cross.  The 
latter  is,  in  fact,  in  both  the  tj'pical  and  the 
antitypical  offering,  the  grand  and  essential 
thing.  In  the  Levitical  rite,  it  is  true,  the 
blood  was  brought  into  the  sanctuary,  and 

'This  adjective  naturally  suggests  that  the  word 
'Spirit'  refers  to  the  hijjher  and  divine  nature  of 
Christ.  His  truly  human  nature,  on  its  spiritual  side, 
was  indeed  eternal  as  to  the  future,  but  so  also  is  the 


sprinkled  there,  but  simply  as  indicative  that 
blood — that  is,  death  (for  in  the  blood  is  the 
life)  was  demanded  as  an  expiation  for  sin ; 
and  in  regard  to  the  great  High  Priest,  we 
may  well  suppose  that  all,  except  the  fact  of 
his  dying  for  sin,  and  then  passing  into  the 
immediate  presence  of  God,  is  a  figurative 
accommodation  to  the  forms  of  the  earthly 
rite.  In  this,  as  in  all  else,  the  visible  becomes 
the  imperfect,  but  necessary,  exponent  of  the 
si)iritual.  Purge  (cleanse)  your  conscience 
from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God. 
'  Your  conscience ' — more  exactly,  'Your  con- 
sciousness '  (ffoverSjjais).  The  term  is  less  aostract 
— it  denotes  more  activity,  a  more  direct  and 
palpable  relation  to  God  than  is  expressed  by 
'conscience.'  The  philosophical  use  of  the 
term  'conscience'  as  a  faculty  which  takes 
cognizance  of  right  and  wrong  has  somewhat 
deadened  its  meaning  as  expressing  an  opera- 
tive, conscious  relation  to  God.  As  to  'dead 
works,'  all  the  works  of  unrogenerate  man  are 
sinful,  and  as  such,  may  be  called  'dead,' 
springing  from  a  nature  which  possesses  in  it 
no  true  spiritual  life.  Such,  however,  is  not 
])recisely  the  import  of  the  term  'dead'  here. 
They  are  probably  the  dead  works  of  the 
law,  those  endeavors  to  fulfill  both  the 
moral  and  the  ceremonial  law,  and  thus  work 
out  a  legal  righteousness,  which  unrenovated 
humanity  is  ever  making,  but  which,  spring- 
ing from  no  living  principle,  are  devoid  of 
life  and  power,  and  can  i)rove  no  acceptable 
service  to  the  living  God.  Dead  works  may 
answer  for  dead  deities.  Outward  and  hollow 
forms  may  satisfy  the  demands  of  idol  worshij>. 
But  the  God  who  lives  himself  demands  living 
worshipers  and  living  worship;  he  who  is 
spiritual,  demands  a  spiritual,  not  a  carnal 
service,  and  a  carnal  service  was  all  that  the 
Levitical  rites  proffered,  and  that  the  Old 
Covenant  could  insure. 

(i)  This  spiritual  eflScaey  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  warrants  and  demands  a  New  Cove- 
nant, inaugurated,  like  the  First,  with  blood, 
but  tl)e  blood  of  a  nobler  victim  than  that  of 
the  Old;  for  Christ  has  entered  into  the  true 
antitypical  sanctuary,  not,  like  the  earthly 
high  priests,  for  repeated  entrances,  but  once 

spirit  of  every  luan.  The  unique  and  .superlative 
value  of  Christ's  self-sacrifice  seems  to  have  been  due 
to  the  impulse  of  the  divine  side  of  bis  nature.— A.  U. 


Ch.  IX.J 


HEBREWS. 


119 


lo  And  for  this  cause  be  is  the  luediator  of  the  new 
lestnuieiit,  that  by  lueans  of  death,  fur  the  redeiuplion 
of  the  trau.sgressions  lliut  time  under  the  first  testauientj, 
they  which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise  of 
eternal  iufaeriiance. 


15  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  (Jod?  And  for  this 
cause  he  is  the  luediator  of  a  new  '  covenant,  that  a 
death  having  taken  place  for  ihe  rcdenipiion  of  the 
trangressions  that  were  under  the  lirst  'covenant, 
they  that  have  been  culled  may  receive  the])iomise 


I  Ttie  Greek  wonl  bere  u^ed  si  nified  both  cocenant  aad  tatameni. 


for  all,  never  to  leave  it  until  he  comes  with- 
out sin  unto  salvation.     (15-28.) 

15.  And  for  this  cause;  namely,  because 
he  is  able  to  perform  such  a  spiritual,  not 
merely  ceremonial  purification, — the  clause 
looks  backward,  not  forward,— he  is  the  me- 
diator of  the  (a)  new  testament  [covenant). 
Emphasis  (with  Alford)  not  merely  on  New, 
but  also  partly  on  Cove)Mnt ;  Mediator  of 
a  Covenant;  namely,  a  New  One.  A  cove- 
nant, or  testament,  requires  to  be  sealed  with 
blood,  and,  in  that  respect,  his  death  fits  him 
for  the  purpose  ;  and,  as  the  Old  Covenant 
bad  but  a  carnal  ritual  and  carnal  promises, 
bad  but  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  was 
adopted  to  such  a  merely  outward  ritual,  his 
blood,  having  such  spiritual  efficacy,  may  well 
connect  itself  with  a  Now  Covenant,  or  testa- 
ment, whose  demands  and  promises  shall  be 
proportionate  to  the  preciousness  and  power 
of  the  blood  which  mediates  it — in  other 
words,  the  new  and  better  sacrifice  demands  a 
New  and  better  Covenant.  The  new  wine 
cannot  be  put  into  old  bottles;  this  cleansing 
blood  cannot  ally  itself  with  the  animal  sacri- 
fices of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  advantage 
must  be  taken  of  it  to  secure  to  the  heirs  of 
promise  blessings  such  as  the  Old  Covenant 
was  unable  to  furnish  ;  namely,  that  by 
means,  etc. — literally,  that  a  death  taking 
place  for  the  redemjition  of  the  transgressions 
that  were  under  the  First  Covenant. 

The  Old  Covenant  had  had  plenty  of  deaths, 
but  they  had  all  been  of  those  irrational  vic- 
tims that  could  sanctify  only  to  the  cleanness 
of  the  flesh.  Tlie  transgressions  of  the  wor- 
shipers they  had  no  power  to  remove.  But 
here  is  a  victim  of  a  diflTerent  order— a  Being 
wlio,  through  an  eternal  Spirit,  has  made  of 
himself  a  voluntary  and  spiritual  offering  to 
God.  It  is  meet  that,  with  the  seal  and  sanc- 
tion of  such  cleansing  blood,  a  New  Covenant 
should  be  formed;  that,  the  victim  dying,  bis 
blood  may  be  efficacious  for  the  redemption 
and  cleansing  awaj'  of  those  sins  under  the 
First  Covenant  which  that  had  only  sj'mbol- 
ically,    never    really,   expiated;    which    had  i 


been  passed  over  and  winked  at  rather  than 
really  removed.  ('Death,'  although  referring 
specifically  to  the  death  of  Christ,  is  spoken  of 
indefinitely  as  'a  death,'  in  order  to  fix  atten- 
tion on  the  abstract  principle,  rather  than  the 
jiarticular  application  of  it.  '  The  redemption 
of  the  transgressions'  is  redemption  of  men 
from  their  transgressions,  although  liofmann 
explains  it  of  the  redeeming,  buying  off,  as  it 
were,  of  the  transgressions  themselves  which, 
having  become  obnoxious  to  the  judgments  of 
God,  involve  those  who  commit  them.)  They 
which  are  (that  have  been)  called — not 
merely'  the  called  of  the  New  Testament,  but 
of  the  Old — might  (may)  receive  the  prom- 
ise—that is,  the  fulfillment,  the  realization  of 
the  i)romise — of  the  eternal  inheritance. 

The  author  has  his  e^'c,  of  ctiurse,  on  the  an- 
cient people  of  God,  and,  as  in  chapter  3,  looks 
on  the  history  of  the  Old  and  New  Covenants 
as  constituting  one  continuous  chain.  The 
New  Covenant  replaces  the  Old ;  the  exjiiation 
of  the  New  Covenant  removes  the  sins  which 
could  not  be  removed  by  the  Old.  The 
'eternal  inheritance'  of  the  one  succeeds  to 
the  temporal  inheritance  of  the  other.  The 
land  of  Canaan,  the  inheritance  and  rest  of 
ancient  Israel,  as  it  was  not  the  true  and  Sab- 
bath rest  of  the  people  of  God,  so  was  not  the 
true  and  eternal  inheritance.  This  it  was  left 
for  the  New  Covenant  under  Christ  to  give. 

But  here,  briefly,  two  questions:  First,  why 
is  the  redeeming  effect  of  the  blood  of  Christ 
restricted  b^'  the  author  to  the  sins  committed 
under  the  Old  Covenant,  and  thus  seemingly 
confined  to  the  Jewish  people?  Did  not  all 
sins  in  all  nations,  from  Adam  down,  need  to 
be  f(>rgiven  by  the  blood  of  Christ?  And  was 
there  anywhere  remission,  except  through  his 
blood?  Certainly  not.  But,  to  the  mind  of 
the  author,  the  Jewish  people  here  (as  2  :  16) 
re])resent  universal  humanity.  It  was  to  them 
immediately,  on  behalf  of  the  race,  that  God 
had  revealed  himself;  to  them  the  j)romise8 
bad  come;  with  them  alone  (Jod  had  directly 
dealt.  The  rest  of  the  world  seemed,  for  the 
time  being,  to  be  without  his  jurisdiction;  ita' 


120 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


ignorance  and  its  wickedness  had,  in  a  manner, 
l)een  overlooked  and  passed  by ;  and,  as  the 
Jewish  people  had  been  exclusively  the  recip- 
ients of  his  law,  his  promises,  his  covenant,  so 
they  would  appear  as  primarily  interested  in 
the  New  Ct>venant,  which  replaces  the  Old. 
As  mankind  at  large  had  no  direct  concern  in 
the  Sinaitic  Covenant,  so,  apparently,  not  in 
the  one  which  supersedes  it.  In  fact,  however, 
the  death  of  Christ  is  equally'  necessary  for  the 
remission  of  all  transgressions  among  all  na- 
tions. 

But,  secondly,  was  there  no  real  forgive- 
ness of  sins  under  the  Old  Covenant?  AVas 
there  only  that  passing  by  {ndpian,  instead  of 
o<fre<ri9,  re^nission) ,  which  is  spoken  of  in  Horn. 
3  :  25,  so  that,  in  reality,  all  sins  remained 
unforgiven  until  the  coming  of  Christ?  Again, 
I  supi>()»e  not.  In  the  case  of  all  the  j)ious  of 
the  Old  Testament,  there  was  a  real  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  but  one  based  not,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  on  the  efficacy  of  the  Old  Testament 
ofterings.  God,  in  view  of  the  atonement, 
always  could,  and  always  did,  forgive  sins,  in 
the  case  of  the  exercise  of  faith,  although,  so 
far  as  concerned  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and 
any  power  which  lay  in  its  sjMiibols,  the  pardon 
could  be  only  provisional,  and  was  rather  a 
passing  over  than  a  remission.  The  repetition 
of  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not 
because  the  sins  of  tlie  really  pious  had  not, 
once  for  all,  been  remitted,  nor  because,  on 
the  other  hand,  these  sacrifices  had  the  slightest 
power,  really,  to  cleanse  awa3'  any  sins.  But 
as  they  were  purely  typical,  it  was  necessary, 
by  means  of  them,  to  keep  constantly  before 
the  worshiper  the  need  of  an  exj)iation,  and 
show  at  once  the  significance  and  the  impotence 
of  the  rites  which  he  was  performing.  The 
reason  why  the  rites  were  so  constantly  repeated 
was  not  because  there  was  any  efficacy  in  theni, 
but  because  there  was  not — because  they  were 
strictly  and  absolutely  symbolical.  Thej'  did 
not  i)rocure  a  partial  pardon,  or  a  temporary 
pardon,  or  any  pardon  whatever;  they  only 
))ointed  forward  to  him  whose  cleansing  blood 
could  take  away  all  sin  just  because  it  could 
take  away  any.  But  while  holding  that  the 
]>ious  of  the  Old  Testament  were  already  act- 
ually forgiven,  I  by  no  means  believe  that 
they  had  that  full  sense  of  forgiveness,  and 
with  this  those  richer  joys  and  hopes,  which 
belong  to  the  clearer  light  and  fuller  spiritual 


influences  of  the  gospel.  Their  perceptions 
were  dimmer  and  their  aspirations  unsatisfied. 
They  saw  through  a  vail,  instead  of  a  glass, 
and  thus  doubly  darkly.  God  did  not  intend 
to  make  them  perfect  in  advance  of  the  be- 
lievers of  the  New  Testament;  and  thus, 
probably,  their  condition,  both  this  side  of 
and  beyond  the  grave,  was  one  of  less  priv^ 
ilcge  than  has  been  allotted  to  believers  since 
the  coming  of  Christ.  Finall3-,  however,  it 
is  proper  to  speak  of  Christ's  death  as  being 
for  the  redemption  of  transgressions  committed 
under  the  First  Covenant,  as  if  they  were  not 
already  forgiven,  because  their  forgiveness  has 
been  conditioned  entirely  upon  his  death. 

16.  The  idea  of  an  'inheritance,'  so  ])romi- 
nent  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  just  mentioned, 
suggests  a  transition  frt)m  a  'covenant'  to  a 
'testament.'  This  transition  is  made  all  the 
more  easily,  and,  indeed,  almost  impercepti- 
bly, as  it  is  but  a  gliding  over  to  the  more 
common  meaning  of  the  word  before  rendered 
'covenant.'  This  word  (itoe>)KT))  means,  pri- 
marily, ' dis2^osition,  arrangement,'  and  then 
a  testamentary  disposition,  a  testament,  and, 
secondarily,  though  rarely  in  the  classics,  an 
arrangement  with  a  second  part3-  (iid  in  com- 
position often  having  this  force,  as  iioAeyoMoi, 
discourse  continuously  and  discourse  with; 
iiaAoYos,  dialogue),  an  'agreement,'  or  ''cove- 
nant.' As  then  the  blessings  bestowed  bj'  Gtid 
upon  his  people  are  spoken  of  both  as  matters 
of  agreement  and  of  inheritance;  and,  as  in 
both  cases,  a  death  was  equaU3'  essential  to  the 
validity  of  the  arrangement,  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  author  should  slide  in  his  usage  from 
one  to  the  other.  In  the  one  case,  it  is  true, 
the  arrangement  was  sealed  b.y  the  death  of  a 
victim;  in  the  other,  b^-  that  of  the  testator. 
But  Christ  being,  in  the  Uniqueness  of  his 
character,  both,  and  alike  dj-ing  as  the  rati- 
fying victim  of  a  covenant  and  living  as  its 
Mediator,  and  also  dying  as  the  condition  of 
his  bestowing  the  giftof  the  eternal  inheritance 
on  his  peo))le,  he  could  with  equal  propriety' 
be  represented  under  either  character.  Here 
the  mention  of  'inheritance'  suggests  his 
death— not  as  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  but  as 
tlie  condition  of  the  validitj'  of  a  testament. 
The  gifts,  indeed,  were  of  God  ;  but  he  placed 
them  in  the  hands  of  Christ,  whose  death  is 
essential  to  their  being  made  available  to  his 
people.     I  may  add  that  the  transition,  which 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS 


121 


16  For  where  a  testament  is,  there  must  also  of  neces- 
sity be  the  death  of  the  testator. 

17  For  a  testament  is  of  force  after  men  are  dead : 
otherwise  it  is  of  no  strength  at  all  while  the  testator 
liveth. 

18  Whereupon  neither  the  first  testament  was  dedi- 
cated witboui  blood. 

19  For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all 
the  people  according  to  the  iaw,  he  took  the  blood  of 
calves  and  of  goals,  wiih  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and 
hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people. 


16  of  the  eternal  inheritance.  For  where  a  •  testament 
is,  there  must  of  necessity  2be  the  death  of  him  who 

17  made  it.  For  a  '  testament  is  of  force  ^  where  there 
hath  been  death:  <  fur  it  doth  never  avail  while  be 

18  who  made  it  liveth.     Wherefore  even  the  first  cove- 

19  naiU  bath  not  been  dedicated  witboui  blood.  For 
when  every  commandment  bad  been  spoken  by 
Moses  unto  all  tbu  people  according  to  the  law,  he 
took  the  blood  of  Ihu  calves  and  the  goats,  with  wa- 
ter and  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both 


1  Tbe  Greek  word  heie  used  siguifies  botb  covenant  and  teatamtnt i  Gr.  be  brought 3  Or.  over  the  dead 4  Ot.  for  doth  it 

ever  .  .  .  liveth  f 


seems  harsh  in  our  language,  which  has  not  a 
cotiitnoii  word,  attracts  no  special  notice  from 
the  Greek  interpreters,  who  take  it  as  a  matter 
of  course.  That  the  transition  is  actually 
made  I  see  no  sufficient  grounds  to  deny. 
Without  it,  verses  16  and  17  are  extremely 
harsh,  and  almost  unmeaning. 

For  where  a  testament  is — referring  to 
the  previous  statement  that  Christ  is  the  Medi- 
ator of  a  New  Covenant  (£iae.)K7)),  in  order  that, 
a  death  occurring,  he  might,  by  the  spiritual 
efficacy  of  his  death,  bestow  on  the  heirs  of 
promise  the  blessings  which  the  ritual  sacrifices 
ot  the  Old  Covenant  never  could  bestow. 
When  he  spoke  of  'death'  in  the  preceding 
verse,  h«  probably  thoughtof  it  in  the  light  of  a 
seal  of  a  covenant;  he  now  almost  insensibly 
changes  the  point  of  view  to  that  of  the  con- 
dition of  a  testament.  There  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  the  death  of  the  testator. 
'Also,'  of  the  Common  Version,  is  to  be 
omitted.  Ebrard,  denj'ing  a  change  from 
the  previous  meaning  of  'covenant,'  refers 
'the  te.etator'  fSiaec/xtvo?)  to  the  man  who,  as 
one  of  the  parties  to  the  covenant,  must  die, 
either  in  his  own  person,  or  that  of  a  substi- 
tute ;  for  on  no  other  condition  can  man  enter 
into  covenant  with  God.  But  it  seems  nearly 
certain  that  the  author  has  here  no  exclusive 
reference  to  a  covenant  between  man  and 
God,  but  is  rather  making  a  general,  and,  as 
it  were,  axiomatic  statement.  Must  be 
(<^ep«o'dat,  he  borne  abroad,  alleged,  declared) 
has  here  no  emphasis. 

17.  For  a  testament  is  of  force  'valid) 


after  {when)  men  are  dead — literally,  over 
(on  condition  of)  the  dead,  of  persons  as  dead 
{vtKpoU),  dead  men,  not  dead  animals.  A  tes- 
tament never  goes  into  force  until  the  testator 
has  died.  It  is  essential  to  the  very  idea  of  a 
bequest.  A  will  or  testament  is  that  which 
disposes  of  property  after  death.  Property 
actually  alienated  by  a  person  wliile  living, 
no  matter  what  the  form,  cannot  be  by  testa- 
ment. 

Otherwise,  etc. — inasmuch  as  it  scarcely 
is  in  force  while  the  testator  liveth.^ 

18.  Wherefore,  eic— Whence  neither  has 
the  first  covenant  been  ina^tgurnted.  vnthout 
blood.  The  author  relapses  here  to  the  former 
idea  of  'covenant,'  turning  easily  on  the  pivot 
of  a  word  common  to  both  significations. 
'Inaugurated,'  introduced  in  a  formal  and 
valid  manner. 

19.  For  when  Moses,  etc. — For  after 
every  command  had  been  spoken  by  Aloses  to 
nil  the  people  according  to  the  law.  'Accord- 
ing to  the  law'— that  is,  which  he  had  received 
on  Sinai.  He  took  the  blood  of  (the)  calves 
(heifers)  and  of  (the)  goats.  The  account  is 
taken  from  Exod.  24  :  3-8,  with,  however,  some 
marked  deviations.  There  is  in  Exodus  no 
mention  of  'goats,'  but  only  of  heifers,  the 
sacrifice  of  goats  as  a  sin  offering  being  not 
yet  established.  The  author,  however,  citing 
from  memory,  and  aiming  at  no  minute  exact- 
ness, unites  the  two  classes  of  heifers  and  goats 
by  which  he  was  accustomed  to  designate  the 
collective  sacrifices  of  the  law.  With  water, 
and  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop.    These  are 


1 '  Scarcely  is  in  force,'  fi'lfore  io-xw'^i,  not  the  same,  T  I  supplied  by  his  hearers.    So  In  I^onginus  "  De  .Sublimi- 


think,  as  ouirore  i<rxv€i,  never  is  in  force  ;  hut  having  the 
doubting,  delicately  sur</estive  import  so  common  to  tbe 
turi  and  nr/noTf,  test,  whether, perchance.  The  author  thus 
elegantly  puts  the  case,«z  ffratifimodestio',  not  ap admit- 
ting that  tbe  doctrine  is  really  questionable,  but  prefer- 
ring to  hold  back  his  own  affirmation,  and  leave  it  to  be 


fate,"  oyKOi  •■•"  ■■■■  (UJiTOTc  n-epuCTTai-Tf?  rjnafttv  rovyavrtov^ 
"  the  false  sublime— perchance  (look  whether  not)  /-ro- 
ducinff  in  us  the  opposite  effect."  Probably  an  elliptical 
construction, equivalent  toopa jiif ortiax'''^  ^"ok ultelher 
it  be  in  force. 


122 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX 


20  Saying,  This  is-  the  blood  of  the  testament  which 
God  haili  enjoined  unto  yon. 

21  Moreover  Le  sprinkled  likewise  with  blood  both 
the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  vessels  ot  the  ministry. 


20  the  book  itself,  and  all  the  people,  saying,  This  is  the 
blood  of  the  'covenant  which  (jod   commanded  to 

21  you-ward.    Moreover  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  ves- 
sels of  the  ministry  he  sprinkled  iu  like  manner 


1  Tbe  Greek  word  here  used  signifies  botb  covenant  und  testament. 


not  mentioned  in  the  above  passage,  but  are 
found  elsewiiere  in  the  Mosaic  purifying  lus- 
trations, as  Num.  19:6,  7;  Lev.  14:2,  seq., 
49  seq.,  where  they  appear  as  employed  in 
connection  with  purification  from  contact  with 
a  dead  body,  or  from  the  leprosy.  A  mixture 
of  living  spring  water,  partly  with  the  ashes 
of  a  red  cow,  partly  with  the  blood  of  a  slain 
bird,  was  in  these  cases  prescribed.  For  this 
purpose  h^'ssop  was  employed,  wound  with 
purple  wool.  The  use  of  the  water,  and  of 
the  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop  as  an  instrument 
for  sprinkling,  needed  perhaps  no  special 
voucher  in  the  text;  it  was  understood  of 
itself  And  sprinkled  both  the  book  and 
all  the  people.  Exodus  simply  informs  us 
that  he  sprinkled  the  people — substantially 
identical  with  'all  the  people.'  Nothing  is 
said  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  book  or  scroll, 
which  is  of  course  the  "book  of  the  cove- 
nant," the  scroll  of  papyrus  or  skin  contain- 
ing the  record  of  the  covenant.  In  introduc- 
ing this,  as  also  in  the  sprinkling  of  "the 
tabernacle  and  the  vessels  of  the  service," 
the  author  probably  follows  Jewish  tradi- 
tion. 

20.  Saying,  This  is  the  blood  of  the 
testament  (covenant),  which  God  hath  en- 
joined unto  you.  The  exact  language  of 
Exod.  24  :  8  is:  "  Behold  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you 
concerning  all  these  words."  The  slight 
changes  are  occasioned,  partly  perhaps  by 
citing  from  memory,  partlj'  in  half  uncon- 
scious allusion  to  the  corresponding  language 
of  the  Saviour  at  the  institution  of  the  Sacred 
Supper:  "  This  is  my  blood  in  the  New  Cove- 
nant," etc.,  which  would  seem  to  have  an 
unquestionable  reference  to  these  words  of 
Moses.  The  expression  'enjoined,'  'com- 
manded' (evsTfiXaTo)  is  also  Substituted  for 
'made,'  'instituted'  (fitcfltro),  in  accordance 
with  the  frequent  usage  of  the  Septuagint. 

21.  Moreover  he  sprinkled,  etc. — And  the 
tabernacle  too  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  service 
he  sprinkled  in  like  manner  with  the  blood. 
This  refers  to  another  and  later  occasion,  as  the 


tabernacle  was  not  in  existence  when  Moses 
thus  solemnly  inaugurated  the  covenant.  It 
is  brought  into  this  connection  for  the  sake  of 
completeness,  and  of  sliowing  how  extensively 
the  use  of  blood  marked  the  inauguration  of 
the  several  parts  of  the  Levitical  worship.  Of 
such  a  sprinkling,  however,  of  the  tabernacle 
when  completed  (see  Exod.  40),  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count is  silent.  It  informs  us  that  the  taber- 
nacle was  anointed  with  oil,  and  thus  conse- 
crated to  the  Lord,  while  Lev.  8  :  15,  19,  24, 
informs  us  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  altar  with 
blood,  and  Josephus  ("Antiquities,"  3  :  8,  6) 
informs  us  expressly  that  the  garments  of 
Aaron,  the  tabernacle,  and  its  vessels,  were 
all  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  slaughtered 
victims.  Such,  therefore,  was  probably  the 
Jewish  tradition,  in  accordance  with  which  is 
the  language  of  our  passage.  On  the  literal 
exactness  of  every  statement  nothing  specially 
depends.  It  would  be  enough  that  th«  author 
follows  in  the  several  particulars  either  the 
Mosaic  narrative  or  accredited  Jewish  tradi- 
tions. His  language  immediately  following 
shows  that  the  use  of  blood  as  an  expiatory 
rite  through  almost  all  departments  of  the  ser- 
vice was  the  point  specially  in  his  mind. 
This  extensive  use  of  blood  in  the  Mosaic 
ritual  had  a  deep  significance.  It  marked  not 
merely  cleansing,  purification  ;  for  that,  ivater 
would  have  been  the  more  natural  symbol. 
It  marked  expiation,  atonement.  Before  Je- 
hovah could  enter  into  covenant  with  his 
people,  his  displeasure  must  be  either  really 
or  symbolically  appeased.  He  could  not  allow 
them  to  come  into  relation  with  him  as  on 
terms  of  moral  equality.  He  could  not  allow 
them  to  forget  the  interval  between  his  holi- 
ness and  their  sinfulness;  and  thus  blood  must 
be  shed,  the  life  of  the  animal  taken  (for  the 
life  was  in  the  blood),  that  by  the  life  of  the 
victim  that  of  the  people  might  be  spared. 
(Kurtz,  "History  of  the  Old  Covenant,"  V. 
3,  p.  143.)  The  connection,  then,  was  direct 
and  close  between  the  blood  shed  in  inaugu- 
rating the  Old,  and  that  shed  in  inaugurating 
the  New  Covenant.     The  one  reminded  the 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


123 


22  And  almost  all  things  are  liy  the  law  purged  with  I  22  with  the  blood.    And  according  to  the  law,  I  may 
bluod ;  and  without  shuUding  of  blood  is  no  remission.  almost  say,  all  things  are  cleansed  with  blood,  and 

I        apart  from  shedding  ol  blood  there  is  no  remission. 


people  of  what  was  needed  that  God  might  be 
reconciled  and  enter  into  covenant  relation 
with  his  people;  the  other /jtr?it*/ierf  it.  And 
for  a  similar  reason  the  sanctuary  and  its 
utensils — nay,  even  tlie  book  of  the  covenant 
—must  undergo  a  like  sprinkling.  Though 
consecrated  to  Jehovah,  they  had  been  wrought 
in  their  material  parts  by  human  hands;  they 
had  on  them  tlie  contamination  of  sin.  The 
very  Holy  of  Holies,  before  God  could  dwell 
in  it,  must  be  cleansed  from  that  stain  of  im- 
purity and  guilt  which  human  hands  had  left 
upon  it.  It  needed  not  only  consecrating  oil, 
but  expiatory  blood. 

22.  And  almost  all  things,  etc. — And  one 
might  say,  in  blood  are  all  things  cleansed. 
The  original  word,  rendered  'almost'  in  the 
Common  Version  {vxe&ov,  one  might  say,  about, 
])retty  nearly),  is  employed  not  like  our  a^mos^ 
(oKiyov  &elv)  to  intimate  that  the  statement  is 
positively  liable  to  some  exception  or  abate- 
ment, but  simply  to  qualify  its  absolute  posi- 
tiveness.  It  does  not  (like  oXiyov  Sdv)  commit 
the  autlior  to  the  fact  that  his  statement  is  not 
,  unqualified,  but  simply  refuses  to  commit  him 
to  the  statement  that  it  is.  It  is  added  regard- 
ing an  assertion  that  may  or  7nay  not  be  pre- 
cisely accurate.  It  differs  from  "so  to  say" 
(<os  inoi  tiiTflv,  with  which  it  in  certain  cases 
might  be  interchanged),  in  that  the  latter 
.softens  a  statement  in  itself  harsh  or  exag- 
gerated; the  other  simply  throws  over  the 
expression  (in  itself  not  necessarily  in  any 
way  improbable)  a  slight  shade  of  uncer- 
tainty.' 

And  without  shedding  of  blood  there 
is  no  remission.  The  name  {aitiaT€<xv<Ti.a) 
may  denote  either  the  shedding  of  the  blood 
of  the  victim  in  sacrifice  (so  Bleek,  Liine- 
mann,  Delitzsch),  or  the  pouring  out  of  the 
blood   of   the   victim   on   the  altar,   and   the 


sprinkling  of  it  (so  De  Wette,  Tholuck,  Hof- 
mann).  The  latter  seems  more  in  harmony 
with  the  inmiediate  context,  in  which,  not  the 
shedding  of  the  victim's  blood,  but  its  subse- 
quent pouring  forth,  is  spoken  of,  wliile  the 
analogy  of  the  language  of  Clirist,  who  says 
at  the  Sacred  Supper,  "My  blood,  which  is 
shed  for  you"  (to  On-ep  u/xiiv  eKX'^'o/^fo"),  as  well 
as  the  general  analogy  of  Christ's  death,  in 
that  his  blood  was  slied,  but  not  afterward 
poured  out,  is  urged  by  Delitzsch,  on  the  otlier 
side.  To  this,  liowever,  it  might  be  replied 
that  our  author  himself  speaks  of  the  'blood 
of  sprinkling'  (i'^:"),  evidently  referring  to 
the  blood  of  Christ  under  the  Old  Testament 
figure,  and  it  may  still,  therefore,  remain  ques- 
tionable which  precise  idea  is  intended.  The 
essential  meaning  is,  of  course,  the  same  in 
either.  For  the  pouring  out  or  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  implies  the  previous  shedding  of  it 
in  the  death  of  the  victim  as  its  necessary  con- 
dition, while  conversely  under  the  Old  Cove- 
nant the  symbolical  expiation  was  not  com- 
pleted until  the  subsequent  sprinkling.  Still 
the  death,  the  taking  the  life,  is  in  both  cases 
the  essential  matter.  What  was  symbolized, 
was  that  sin  could  not  be  expiated  without 
death.  Under  the  Old  Testament  formula,  a 
legal  remission  stood  connected  with  the  ritual 
shedding  of  blood.  Real  remission  was  then, 
as  alwaj's,  through  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
which  was  thus  symbolized. 

23-28.  Inference,  now,  from  the  earthly  to 
the  heavenly  sanctuary  ;  in  other  words,  from 
the  ceremonial  and  carnal  to  the  purely  spir- 
itual Dispensation.  As  the  former  demanded 
the  symbol,  this  demands  tlie  reality;  as  that 
the  blood  of  animal  sacrifices,  this  the  blood 
of  Christ;  and  his  entrance  once  for  a/ 1  with 
a  complete  and  final  expiation,  as  High  Priest, 
into  the  heavenly  sanctuary. 


1  Thus  Plato,  "  Phaedo,"  2.  SxtSov  oSroi  iraptytVoi'To. 
"  I  should  think  that  about  these  were  present  "—there 
may  have  been  one  or  two  others,  and  may  not.  It  seems 
singular  that  Chrysostoni,  whom  we  nuist  admit  to  have 
known  his  own  language,  refers  trxeSoy  to  the  verb, 
KaBaftii^erai.  It  is  less  singular,  though  not  less  errone- 
ous, that  Bengel  and  Bohme  refer  it  to  iv  ol/aari.  Its 
proper  and  unquestionable  reference  is  to  'all,'  Trai'Ta, 


The  modifying  shade  of  <rxfS6v  is  not  thrown  on  the 
verb,  as  if  there  were  any  doubt  about  the  cleansing ;  not 
on  '  in  blood,'  «"•'  oimoti,  as  if  there  were  any  doubt  about 
its  being  in  blood ;  but  simply  upon  'all,'  ndfTa,  imply- 
ing that  the  writer  will  not  quite  commit  himself  to  the 
unqualified  assertion  that  everylhing  was  cleansed  with 
blood,  '/n  6/ood'— that  is,  in  the  sphere  of  blood, 
equivalent  to  by  or  with  blood. 


124 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


23  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  patterns  of 
thiugs  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these; 
but  ihe  heavenly  things  tliemselves  with  better  sacri- 
tices  than  these. 

24  For  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy  places 
made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true  ;  but 
into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of 
God  for  us : 


23  It  was  necessary  therefore  that  the  copies  of  the 
thiugs  in  the  heavens  should  be  cleansed  with  these; 
but  the  heavenly  things  themselves  with  better  sao- 

24  rifices  than  these,  lor  Christ  entered  not  into  a 
holy  place  made  with  hands,  like  in  jiattern  to  the 
true ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  before 


33.  It  was  (ts)*  therefore  necessary 
that  the  patterns  {copies)  of  (the)  things 
in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with 
these;  but  the  heavenly  things  them- 
selves [be  cleansed]  with  better  sacrifices 
than  these.  Resumption  of  the  imagery 
drawn  from  the  language:  "See  thou  make 
all  things  after  the  pattern  shown  to  thee  in 
the  mount."'  The  earthly  tabernacle  is  repre- 
sented as  a  sort  of  shadowy  representation  of 
the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  in 
which  Christ,  the  great  High  Priest,  ministers, 
and  the  objects  grouped  around  it  as  having 
their  archetypes  in  heaven.  Thus,  therefore, 
he  continues  in  figurative  language,  as  the 
earthly  copies  are  cleansed  with  rites  like  these, 
their  heavenly  archetypes  demand  a  nobler 
element  of  cleansing.  But  we  need  not  be  led 
astray  by  a  figure,  nor  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  anything  actually  in  heaven  demands  the 
cleansing  of  Christ's  blood.  The  old  taber- 
nacle expressed  relations:  the  old  ritual  was 
symbolical.  Unable  to  accomplish  any  purifi- 
cation itself,  it  pointed  forward  to  a  purifica- 
tion to  be  accomplished  by  a  Victim  of  infinite 
preciousness.  While  thus  the  symbolical  puri- 
fications of  the  law  are  accomplished  with  sac- 
rifices like  these,  the  cleansings  which  they 
prefigure  demand  sacrifices  far  more  costly 
and  efllcacious.  A  typical  expiation  may  be 
made  with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats;  but 
H  real  expiation  must  be  made  with  more  pre- 
cious blood ;  namely,  that  of  Christ.  The 
'heavenly  things'  is  especially  the  'sanctu- 
ary,' and  this  perhaps  would  be  better  sup- 
plied. 'Sacrifices"  in  the  plural,  simply  in 
analogy  with  the  many  Levitical  sacrifices; 
not  that  here  more  than  one  is  demanded. 

2  4.  For  Christ  is  not  entered,  etc.,/o?- 
not  into  a  sanctuary  made  with  hands — and 
therefore  not  into  one  which  could  admit  the 


carnal  and  outward  puri  fications  of  that  old  ma- 
terial sanctuary,  the  earthly  Holy  of  Holies — 
did  Christ  enter.  The  'for'  (vop),  not  (with 
Bleek,  Liinemann)  indicating  the  proof  that 
Christ  has  really  gone  into  the  heavenly  sanc- 
tuary;  nor  exactly  (with  Delitzsch)  establish- 
ing the  position  that  better  sacrifices  were 
demanded  for  the  heavenly  world  from  the 
fact  of  that  one  which  has  been  actually 
offered,  and  then  gone  to  God ;  but  rather  re- 
asserting the  reason  why  better  sacrifices  are 
demanded;  namely,  from  the  transcendent  and 
spiritual  character  of  the  sanctuary  into  which 
Christ  is  gone,  and  the  real,  not  the  symbolical, 
presence  of  God  into  which  he  has  entered. 

Which  are  the  figure,  etc. — the  counter- 
part of  the  genuine  one.  'Counterpart'  {ami- 
Tuiro«)  is  here  clearly  equivalent  to  copy,  shad- 
owy representation  (iinoBeiyixa,  8  :  5).  Bleek, 
supposing  the  model  (ti/tto?,  8  :  5)  shown  to 
Moses  in  the  Mount  to  be  itself  a  copy  of  the 
real,  heavenly  tabernacle,  regards  the  'coun- 
terpart' (oi'TiTUTros)  here  as  a  cojyy  of  a  copy. 
Yet  nothing  could  be  more  alien  from  the  con- 
ception of  the  author.  He  does  not  regard 
that  model  shown  to  Moses  as  a  copy,  but  it  is 
expressly  pointed  to  by  him  as  the  original  of 
that  constructed  by  Moses.  Only  we  must 
rightly  understand,  and  avoid  unduly  press- 
ing, the  figurative  language  of  the  author. 
Of  course,  he  is  merely  using  the  model  shown 
to  Moses,  issuing  from  the  divine  hand,  as 
standing  for  the  great  moral  and  spiritual 
truths  which  the  earthly  tabernacle  shadowed 
forth.  That  earthly  tabernacle  indicated  rela- 
tions, facts,  spiritual  truths;  and  these  facts 
and  truths  it  is  exceedingly  natural  should, 
in  figurative  language,  be  gathered  up  and 
expressed  in  the  pattern  which  came  directly 
from  the  divine  hand.  If  we  take  the  mate- 
rial structure  reared  by  Moses  as  symbolizing 


'Delitszch,  Moll,  etc.,  supply  ^i*,  there  was  necessity, 
making  a  temporal  reference.  With  Liinemann  and 
Pe  Wette,  I  decidedly  prefer  iariv,  is,  making  the  state- 
me.nt  general  and  absolute.  Had  the  author  in/ended  a 
past  tense,  he  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to 
have  expressed  it.    The  present  is  easily  understood  of 


itself.  Nor  is  the  past  required  by  the  past  {(i<Tri\0(v) 
of  the  following  verse,  for  there  the  past  tense  is  purely 
subordinate,  the  resolution  of  the  clause  being:  "For  it 
is  into  no  sanctuary  made  with  hands  that  Christ  cdt 
tered,"  etc. 


Ch.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


125 


2o  Nor  yet  that  he  should  offer  himself  often,  as  the  I  25  the  face  of  God  for  us:  nor  yet  that  he  should  offer 
high  priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every  year  with  himself  often  ;  as  the  high  priest  enteretb  iuto  the 
blood  ol' others;  I        holy  place  year  by  year  with  blood  not  his  own; 


great  truths,  it  is  natural  to  put  the  model 
which  God  showed  to  him  as  answering  to  the 
truths  themselves.  It  seems  extraordinary 
that  language  so  manifestly  figurative,  and 
really  so  obvious  in  its  import,  should  have  so 
puzzled  and  misled  intelligent  and  acute 
minds.  But  into  heaven  itself.  In  the  use 
of  the  word  'heaven,'  the  conception  would 
naturally  and  easily  vary.  Sometimes  Christ 
lias  passed  through  the  heavens,  and  become 
higher  than  tlie  heavens;  at  other  times  he  is 
in  the  lofty  heavens  (so  probably  we  are  to 
supply  1  :  4),  here  'in  heaven  itself.'  In  re- 
gard to  a  term  so  vague  as  that  of  '  heaven,' 
of  course  the  language  is  nut  to  be  pressed. 
In  reference  to  the  lower,  visible  heavens,  or 
even  heaven  as  representing  the  highest  part 
of  the  created  universe,  Christ  has  passed  be- 
yond and  above  the  heavens.  In  another  re- 
lation the  heavens  are  themselves  beyond  the 
created  universe,  are  the  immediate  dwelling 
place  of  God,  conceived  apart  from  conditions 
of  space  and  time,  and  in  such  a  sense  the 
phrase  is  employed  here.  'Heaven  itself  is 
the  heaven  of  heavens,  the  highest  heaven, 
the  seat  of  God's  presence  and  glory,  whether 
regarded  locally  or  otherwise. 

Now  to  appear,  etc. — be  manifested  before 
the  face  of  God  in  behalf  of  us.  'Now,'  not 
as  equivalent  to  continually,  now  and  forever- 
more  ;  but  '  now,'  at  last,  after  so  long  a  reign 
of  shadow  and  copy  and  symbol.  Now  he  is 
manifested  before  the  face  of  God.  He  now 
accomplishes  that  actual  drawing  near,  com- 
ing into  the  real  presence  of  God,  which  the 
earthly  high  priest  could  do  only  in  the  most 
partial  and  imperfect  manner.  The  earthly 
high  priest  entered  the  sanctuary  amid  a  cloud 
of  incense  which  half  envel()])ed  him  and  the 
mercy  seat  itself  He  was  half  hidden  from 
even  the  symbol  of  God.  God  appeared  to 
him  but  in  symbol,  and  even  that  symbol  was 
but  dimly  visible.  The  awe-struck  priest 
must  have  felt,  under  this  near  contact  with 
Jehovah,  as  the  collective  Israelites  felt  at 
Sinai,  and  rejoiced  perhaps  that  his  entrance 
into  that  awful  presence  was  at  so  wide  inter- 
vals, and  then  so  nearly  vailed.  But  Christ 
has  gone  not  into  the  symbolical,  but  the  real 
and  absolute  presence  of  God.     He  is  fully 


manifested  before  the  fully  manifested  Deity. 
Father  and  Son,  the  Propitiated  and  the  Pro- 
pitiator, come  into  full  communion,  confront- 
ing, as  it  were,  each  other  with  open  face. 
"Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  the  glory 
which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." 
25.  Nor  yet,  etc. — And  not  that  he  ^nay 
frequently  offer  himself,  as  the  high  priest 
entereth  into  the  holy  place  year  by  year  with 
tlie  blood  of  others.  Our  author's  use  of  offer 
(irpocT^cpeti')  might  allow  its  reference  either  to 
Christ's  sacrificial  offering  of  himself  on  earth 
(9: 14,28;  10: 1,2.  etc.),  or  to  his  high  pricstly  offer- 
ing in  heaven  (8:3).  Many  interpreters  (as 
Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Ebrard,  Liinemann)  un- 
derstand it  of  the  former;  others  (as  Hof- 
mann,  Delitzsch,  Moll,  Alford)  of  the  latter. 
In  favor  of  the  latter  is  the  immediately  fol- 
lowing comparison  with  the  Jewish  high 
priest,  not  as  repeating  his  sacrifices,  but  as 
repeating  his  entrances  into  the  sanctuary. 
The  more  exact  verbal  analogy,  therefore, 
would  refer  the  language  to  Christ's  priestly 
offering  on  high.  But  this  argument  is  by  no 
means  decisive,  for  in  the  author's  mind  (as  in 
the  actual  fact)  the  two  stand  in  inseparable 
connection.  An  entrance  into  the  sanctuary 
supposes  a  preceding  sacrifice;  a  sacrificial 
offering  supposes  the  subsequent  entrance. 
The  spirit  of  the  comparison,  therefore  (if  not 
precisely  its  letter),  is  equally  preserved  b3'' 
referring  this  "offering  of  himself"  to  Christ's 
previous  sacrifice  on  earth.  And  as  the  added 
'himself  seems  to  suggest  rather  the  earthly 
than  the  heavenly  offering,  we  may  easily 
conceive  that  the  author  has,  in  this  case,  cho- 
sen the  former  as  the  representative  act,  and 
set  over  against  the  Levitical  high  priest's  re- 
peated entrances  into  the  sanctuary'  (which 
involved  repeated  deaths),  the  hypothesis  of 
Christ's  repeated  deaths  (which  involved  re- 
peated entrances  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary). 
And  this  idea  of  offering  himself  in  death  the 
language  favors.  It  is  natural  to  speak  of 
'offering  himself  in  death  on  the  cross  (ns  at 
ver.  14),  and  'being  offered,'  which  is  close 
akin  (tct. 28),  but  less  so  to  speak  of  his  'offer- 
ing himself  (whatever  the  precise  import  of 
the  expression)  in  heaven.  As  we  have  thus 
warrant  for  the  one  and  not  for  the  other — for 


126 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


2()  For  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the 
foundation  of  the  world:  but  now  onee  in  the  end  of 
the  world  hatli  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sac- 
ritice  of  himself. 


25  else  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  :  but  now  once  at  the  i  end  of  the 
ages  hath  he  been  manifested  to  put  away  sin* by 


I  Or,  consummation. 


.'I  Or,  by  his  sacrifice. 


what  Christ  is  to  offer  as  Heavenly  Priest  (8:3) 
is  not  'himself,'  but  (9:3)  'his  own  blood' — I 
prefer,  with  most  interpreters,  this  significa- 
tion here.  The  ellipsis  is  easily  supplied : 
"And  [he  has  entered]  not  that  he  may  fre- 
quently offer  himself  [in  sacrifice,  and  thus 
frequently  leave  it  and  return  to  it],  just  as  the 
high  priest,"  etc.  And  in  this  interprefation 
we  do  not,  I  think,  lay  tlie  author  liable  to 
De  Welte's  taunt  of  not  being  quite  sure  of  his 
own  meaning.  We  add  that  there  is  an  im- 
plied argument  in  the  contrast  of  Christ's 
offering  himself,  and  the  Levitical  priests 
entering  the  sanctuary  with  alien  blood. 

26.  For  then,  etc. — since  [then]  he  must 
have  frequently  suffered  since  the  foundation 
of  the  world ;  but,  as  it  is,  once  for  all,  at  the 
end  of  the  world,  he  has  been  tnanifeste.d. 

The  clause  'since  the  foundation  of  the 
world,'  has  by  many  former  editors  been  en- 
closed in  parentheses;  but  this  is  now  gener- 
ally, and  rightly,  expunged,  and  the  clause 
taken  in  connection  with  the  following.  They 
thus  present  the  two  opposites  of  an  alterna- 
tive. In  case  that  Christ  had  entered  heaven, 
to  offer  himself  repeatedly  he  must  have 
frequently  suffered  since  the  foundation  of 
the  world  ;  but  in  fact,  as  the  case  stands,  he 
has  not  done  so — he  has  manifested  himself 
once  for  all  in  the  consummation  of  the  ages. 

The  passage  is  thus  an  argument  against  the 
supposition  of  this  entrance  for  repeated  offer- 
ings. But  what  kind  of  an  argument?  Is  it 
from  the  intrinsic  proprieties  of  the  case,  from 
the  unnaturalness  of  Christ's  having  thus, 
many  times  in  former  ages,  descended  from 
heaven  to  suffer,  and  re-ascended  for  priestly 
mediation  ?  If  so,  then  why  does  the  author 
dwell  upon  what  must  have  been  done  in  the 
past,  rather  than  what  this  hypothesis  would 
require  in  the  future?  Why  not  rather  say 
that  it  would  not  be  necessary  that  he  should 
repeat  his  suffering  many  times  in  the  ages  to 
come?  The  only  reply  that  can  be  made  to 
this  is  that  the  world  is  conceived  as  having 
nearly  run  its  appointed  cycle,  and  there 
would  be,  in  the  future,  no  space  left  for  such 
offerings. 


The  view  above  given  is  the  ordinary  one; 
but  I  cannot  conceive  it  to  be  the  just  one, 
which  seems  to  me  mucli  more  simple  and 
obvious.  This  is  to  take  '^  it  was  necessary'' 
(eSei),  simply,  of  logical  necessity  (equivalent 
to  "  it  could  not  but  have  been  the  case  that") 
not  of  that  which  would  have  been  required 
by  the  fitness  of  the  case,  but  of  that  which 
would  have  actually  happened,  but  which,  as 
it  is,  has  not  happened.  Had  the  priestly 
intercession  of  Christ,  says  the  author,  been 
like  the  services  of  the  Levitical  priests,  re- 
quiring perpetual  repetition,  it  would  have 
involved,  like  theirs,  repeated  descents  and 
sufferings  on  earth,  and  repeated  re-ascensions 
and  entrances  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary. 
No  such  thing  has  occurred;  no  such  repeti- 
tion of  the  victim's  sufferings  has  been  made 
— all  has  been  deferred  for  one  single,  final, 
all-sufficient  offering,  both  on  earth  and  in 
heaven.  This  explanation,  I  think,  is  all 
sufficient.  It  accounts  for  the  placing  of  this 
supposed  repetition  in  the  past  and  not  in  the 
future.  Had  Christ's  priestly  ministry,  is  the 
thought,  been  like  the  Levitical  ministry,  it 
would,  like  theirs,  have  demanded  constant 
repetitions,  and  we  should  have  witnessed  the 
spectacle  of  a  recurrence  of  his  sufferings  dur- 
ing the  past  ages.  It  relieves  us,  too,  from 
another  inquiry;  namely,  from  answering 
the  question.  Why  this  repetition  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  should  not  have  actually 
occurred?  Christ  has  actually  descended 
from  heaven  and  died  once.  Who  is  compe- 
tent to  assert  that,  granting  the  necessity,  he 
should  not  have  descended  and  died  agtiin? 
How  can  we  be  sure  that  the  same  exigency 
would  not  have  led  anew  and  repeatedly  to 
the  same  sacrifice?  Upon  this  and  other  like 
questions,  we  are  not  required  to  turn  our 
minds.  The  author  simply  reminds  us,  as 
incontrovertible  proof  of  the  finality  of  this 
sacrifice,  that  the  hypothesis  of  its  non-effi- 
ciency and  finality  would  have  involved  in 
the  past  ages  its  frequent  repetition.  JVo  sttch 
repetition  has  occurred.  As  matter  of  fact, 
the  whole  mighty  display  of  love  and  power 
has  been  reserved  for  and  precipitated,  as  it 


Cf.  IX.] 


HEBREWS. 


127 


were,  upon  one  decisive  moment  in  the  inter- 
locking of  the  ages. 

There  is,  indeed,  another  view,  proposed  by 
Hofmann  (and  followed  by  Delitzsch,  Moll, 
and  Alford),  which  may  require  a  brief  no- 
lice.  It  assumes  that  Christ's  offering  himself 
(rer.  M)  refers  to  the  priestly  offering  in  heaven, 
not  to  his  sacrificial  offering  on  earth,  and  that 
the  repetition  of  those  heavenly  self-presenta- 
tions is  denied  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
involve  tlie  necessity  of  his  repeatedly  suffer- 
ing death  on  earth.  But  the  peculiarity  of 
tlie  view  lies  in  its  denying  that  the  author 
contemplates,  along  with  these  repeated  heav- 
enly oblations,  correspondingly  repeated  de- 
scents and  sufferings  on  earth.  The  author 
plants  himself,  this  view  maintains,  on  the 
heavenly  entrance  and  priesthood  of  Christ 
as  a  finality.  He  does  not  once  contemplate 
the  withdrawal  of  Ciirist  from  the  heavenly 
Holy  of  Holies,  into  which  he  has  onceentered, 
that  he  may  re-descend  and  suffer,  but  only 
declares  that,  being  there,  he  has  not  to  make 
repeated  offerings  of  himself,  because  this 
would  involve  the  necessity  that  before  he 
ascended  there  he  should  have  gone  through 
a  series  of  sufferings  corresponding  to  the 
number  of  his  entrances  into  the  heavenly 
sanctuar3'.  This,  they  say,  explains  the  rea- 
son of  the  limitation  of  his  sufferings  to  past 
times.  If  he  had  now  entered  heaven  to 
make  repeated  priestly  oblations,  then  (as  in 
the  Levitical  service  there  must  be  for  every 
entrance  into  the  sanctuary  a  separate  sacri- 
fice) he  must,  on  earth  in  previous  times,  have 
undergone  a  corresponding  number  of  deaths, 
and  thus  have  suffered  many  times  since  the 
foundation  of  the  world. 

Ingenious  as  is  this  view,  I  think  it  is  only 
the  eminent  ability  of  the  men  who  have 
adopted  and  defended  it  that  would  require 
for  it  any  serious  notice.  The  explanation 
which  we  have  adopted  above  is  perfectlj' 
natural  and  simple,  and  makes  equally  clear 
the  reference  to  the  previous  suffering.  It  is 
undoubtedly  clear  that  the  author  plants  him- 
self on  the  singleness  and  finality  of  Christ's 
priestly  entrance  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary  ; 
but  why?  Is  it  not  because  he  conceives  his 
single  entrance  into  heaven  as  corresponding 
to  one  single,  efficacious  sacrifice  on  earth? 
And  if  the  efficacy  of  that  sacrifice  is  denied, 
would  not  the  singleness  and  sufficiency  of 


the  heavenly  presentation  fall  along  with  it? 
And  why  is  it  less  easy  to  suppose  Christ  re- 
peatedly dying,  and  making  with  each  death  a 
new  priestly  entrance  into  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
than  to  suppose  him  first  undergoing  a  series 
of  deaths  in  successive  ages,  and  then  finally 
entering  heaven  to  make  a  corresponding 
series  of  high-priestly  oblations?  This  latter 
idea  could  never  have  suggested  itself  to  a 
Jewish  mind  familiar  with  the  Levitical  sac- 
rifices. The  Levitical  high  priest  entered, 
year  by  year,  the  Mosaic  sanctuary  ;  and  with 
every  successive  entrance  there  was,  of  course, 
a  fresh  sacrifice.  The  idea  of  the  Levitical 
priest  entering  repeatedly  the  inner  tabernacle 
on  the  strength  of  a  series  of  former  sacrifices, 
would,  it  seems  to  me,  have  been  simjjly  mon- 
strous. And  not  less  monstrous  is  the  suppo- 
sition that  Christ  should,  by  a  series  of  former 
deaths,  have  accumulated  the  material  for  a 
series  of  oblations  after  assuming  the  heavenly 
priesthood.  One  efficacious  and  final  sacrifice 
followed  by  one  final  and  permanent  entrance, 
or  a  series  of  sacrifices  followed  by  a  series  of 
entrances,  is  all  that  the  analogy  of  the 
Levitical  service  could  suggest.  And  surely 
the  writer  would  not  for  a  moment  con- 
ceive of  the  absoluteness  and  finality  of 
Christ's  priestly  offering,  except  as  depend- 
ent on  the  absoluteness  and  finality  of  the 
previous  sacrifice.  Unfix  the  one,  and  you 
unfix  the  other;  and  then,  according  to  the 
whole  analogy  of  the  Levitical  priesthood, 
you  make  it  necessary  for  him  to  descend  and 
perform  a  new  sacrifice.  And  the  renewal  of 
these  ascents  and  descents  is  as  supposable  as 
the  renewal  of  the  deaths  with  which  they 
are  connected;  and  that  these  successive  deaths 
should  be  supposed  to  have  taken  place  after 
the  analogy  of  the  Jewish  priestly  rites,  in 
connection  with  successive  entrances  into  the 
sanctuary,  is  as  easy  as  to  suppose  them  to 
have  taken  place  somewhere  and  somehow  in 
former  ages,  and  then  their  collective  effect 
gathered  up  and  made  available  in  a  succession 
of  priestly  offerings  before  God. 

Theonlj'  end  gained  by  this  hypothesis — 
namely,  that  it  explains  the  phrase  "Must 
have  suffered  many  times  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world" — is  equally  well  gained  by  one 
which  argues  the  sufficiency  and  finality  of 
Christ's  entrance  and  suffering,  from  the  fact 
that  he  has  not  (as  otherwise  he  would  have) 


128 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  IX. 


27  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  j  27  the  sacrifice  of  himself.     And  inasmuch  as  it  is  '  ap- 

after  this  the  judgment :  pointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  alter  this  ci/mtl/i 

■^8  So  Christ  was  once  offered   to  bear   the  sins  of  \  28,judgmeut;  so  Christ  also,  having  been  once  offered 

1  Gr.  laid  up  for. 


suffered  many  times — and,  of  course,  brought 
many  priestly  offerings — from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  As  to  his  other  argument,  that  the 
author  ought  otherwise  to  have  said,  "suffered 
and  entered  into  the  sanctuary,"  it  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  the  ellipsis  is  perfectly  easily  sup- 
plied (if  requisite),  every  expiatory  death 
supposing  a  subsequent  entrance  into  the  sanc- 
tuary with  the  blood,  and  every  such  en- 
trance im|)lying  a  previous  expiatory  sacrifice. 
Either,  therefore,  in  this  fixedness  of  their 
connection,  may  stand  for  both. 

The  'consummation  of  the  ages'  {avvriKna. 
alMvuiv)  is  equivalent  to,  'the  end  of  these 
days' — that  is,  'the  end  of  the  world,'  or,  'the 
ages  '  (to.  TfKri  Tuiv  altuviov),  1  Cor.  10  :  11,  etc.  It 
marks  the  point  at  which  the  pre-Messianic 
age  terminates,  and  the  coming,  or  'future 
age'  {ali}v  fieAAoji/)  commcnces.  'Manifested' 
here  clearly  not  '  before  God  (as  some)  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,'  but  on  earth  in  his  in- 
carnation. So  1  Tim.  3  :  16,  "God  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh  ' ;  1  John  1  :  2,  "The  life 
■was  manifested"  ;  1  Peter  1  :  20,  "  was  mani- 
fested in  the  last  times  for  you."  Elsewhere 
the  word  is  applied  to  Christ's  second  coming. 

(l  John  2  :  28.) 

To  put  away  sin,  etc.  —  For  the  doing 
away  of  sin  by  his  sacrifice.  'Doing  away,' 
annulling,  abrogation  (iefTijcrt?),  as  of  a  law 
(7:18),  of  the  sin,  as  well  for  past  ages  as  for 
the  generation  in  which  he  appeared.  The 
expiation  was  good  for  all  times,  as  shown  by 
its  being  made  at  the  close  of  the  great  his- 
torical eras.  'His  sacrifice,'  not,  'the  sacrifice 
of  himself  (auroO),  but  'the  sacrifice  which 
he  offers,'  which  is  indeed,  of  course,  the  sac- 
rifice of  himself,  and  need  not  be  expressed. 

27-28.  A  sort  of  argument  from  analogy 
for  the  single,  unrepeated  death  of  Christ. 
His  case,  says  the  author,  stands  in  general 
relation  to  that  of  man,  with  whom  he  shares 
humanit}',  and  to  whose  destiny  his  might  be 
expected  to  bear  a  resemblance.  In  man's 
history  there  are  two  grand  epochs:  first, 
death;  then,  at  a  greater  or  less  interval,  a 
judgment.  Each  of  them  is  for  itself  single 
and  final.  So  there  are  two  corresponding 
epochs  in  the  history  of  Christ:  first,  his  death 


to  sin  ;  then  his  coming  to  judgment.  And  as 
one  death,  once  for  all,  is  man's  allotment  un- 
til the  final  fixing  of  his  destiny  in  the  judg- 
ment, so  otie  death  for  sin  is  Christ's  allotment 
until  his  final  coming  to  the  judgment  thai 
shall  fix  the  destiny  of  the  world.  The  two 
epochs,  then,  in  case  of  each,  stand  severally 
related  to  each  other;  their  death  once  for  all 
through  sin  to  his  death  once  for  all  for  sin  ; 
and  their  appearing,  as  the  next  thing,  at  the 
tribunal  of  the  final  judgment,  to  his  appear- 
ing as  the  next  thing  to  rear  and  ascend  tliat 
tribunal.  There  is  thus,  not  merely  the  state- 
ment of  a  fact,  but  a  sort  of  latent  argument 
for  the  absolute  finality,  the  deci-sive  and  abid- 
ing consequences  of  his  atoning  death. 

27.  And  as  it  is  appointed,  etc. — And  in 
so  far  as  it  is  reserved.  '  Reserved,'  not  ex- 
actly, as  in  the  Common  Version,  'appointed.' 
Also,  not  merely,  as  in  our  version,  'a.s'(is),  or 
'according  as'  (icoflu?),  but  'inasmuch  as,'  'in 
so  far  as'  (<ca9'  baov),  the  words  implying  not 
merely  a  likeness,  but  a  ground  or  reason. 
The  author  argues  from  the  uniqueness  of 
man's  death  and  its  relations  to  the  next  and 
great  epoch  in  his  destiny  to  a  like  uniqueness 
of  Christ's  death  and  a  like  relation  to  his 
Second  Coming.  Once  {for  all)  to  die  (to 
die  a  death  which  has  no  repetition),  and 
after  this  the  (a)  judgment — not  necessarily 
immediately  after.  The  reference  is  to  tlie 
final  judgment,  and  the  interval  may  be 
greater  or  less.  Nor  does  the  'judgment'  here 
(as  10  :  2,  'a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment') 
necessarily  imply  condemnation.  It  is  simply 
that  adjudication  which  will  take  place  for  all 
men  in  righteousness  (Acta  n;  si),  and  of  which 
the  results,  as  stated  in  Matt.  25,  will  be  eter- 
nal life  or  punishment,  according  to  the  char- 
acters of  those  judged. 

28.  So  {also)  Christ,  etc.  The  latent 
ground  of  the  inference  here  is  Christ's  par- 
ticipation in  humanity.  "We  may  reason  from 
men  in  general  to  him,  because  he  also  was 
man  {being)  offered  once  for  all.  Here, 
clearly,  'offered  upon  the  cross,'  in  expiatory 
sacrifice,  the  passive  being  used  (not  the  active, 
'offering  himself)  simply  because  the  author 
would  express  the  mere  passive  act  of  suffering, 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


129 


many;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  heap- 
pear  tlie  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation. 


to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second  tinie, 
apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  aim,  unto  sal- 
vation. 


without  regard  to  the  agent.  Hence,  we  need 
neither,  with  Chrysostom,  supply  'by  him- 
self,' nor  '  by  man  or  by  God  '  ;  but  may  leave 
the  thought  in  its  absolute  generality.  To 
bear  the  sins  of  many.  'Many'  here  is 
used  not  as  opposed  to  'all,'  and  as  limiting 
the  extent  of  the  purpose  and  applicability  of 
the  sacrifice.  It  is  rather  in  contrast  to  the 
im^^fe  dying;  he  died  but  once,  but  it  was  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many.  A  more  disputed 
point  is  the  precise  meaning  of  'bear'  (avivey- 
Kily).  By  many  (with  Chrysostom,  Theophy- 
lact,  etc.)  it  is  understood  of  bringing  the  sins 
as  a  sacrifice  to  be  immolated;  by  others  (as 
Lutlier,  Bleek,  Hofmann,  Lunemann),  of 
'taking  away'  (aijiaipelv)  sins;  by  others  (as 
Bengel)  of  carrying  them  to  the  cross;  by 
others  (as  Bohmo,  De  Wette,  Delitzsch,  Moll) 
of  substitioiiary  or  vicarious  bearing,  of 
taking  upon  himself  the  sins  of  many.  On 
the  first  and  third  of  these  meanings  we  need 
not  dwell.  Of  the  second,  it  is  enough  to  say 
that  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  the  verb 
{iiVfviyKelv)  Can  be  used  in  the  sense  of  'remov- 
ing,' or  'taking  away."  It  is  more  probable 
that,  with  allusion  to  Isa.  53:12,  'he  bore 
{aviivfyKf)  the  slus  of  many,'  where,  by  com- 
parison with  53  :  4,  it  clearly  denotes  substitu- 
tionary bearing — that  is,  taking  vpon  himself 
(see  also  Matt.  8:17:  he  'took  (iKa^ev)  our 
sins  and  bore  {iSaaraaiv)  our  diseases'),  such  is 
also  the  import  of  the  word  here,  and  that  the 
author  describes  Christ  as  being  offered  in 
order  to  bear  upon  himself  the  burden  of 
human  sin,  and  thus  take  it  away.  The  (a) 
second  time  (1:6)  without  (apart  from) 
sin — not,  without  the  contamination  of  sin, 
for  that  he  never  had;  not,  without  tempta- 
tion to  sin,  although  this  will  be  true;  but 
here,  in  ap|)arent  contrast  to  'bearing  the  sins 
of  many.'  he  will  come  without  the  burden  of 
sin  upon  him  :  that  burden  which  made  him  a 
man  of  .sorrows,  which  compelled  him  to  en- 
dure temptation  in  the  wilderness,  agonize  in 
the  garden,  and  shed  his  blood  on  the  cross. 
Unto  them  that  look  for  (avmit)  him 
(ineKStxoiievoit,   1   Cor.  1:7;    Phil.    3:20,    and 


elsewhere  in  Paul)— to  believers  who,  having 
trusted  him,  now  while  he  is  gone  to  God  look 
an.viously  and  believingly  for  his  reappear- 
ing. Shall  he  appear  {6<i>e^,TeTai)—wiU  he  be 
seen.  His  coming  will  be  visible,  manifest  to 
all.  Acts  1 :  11,  "will  he  come  as  ye  behold 
him  go  up  into  heaven."  See  Matt.  24:27. 
Unto  (fur)  salvation.  Before,  he  came  to 
render  their  salvation  possible;  now  he  will 
come  to  accomplish  it.  Before,  he  came  to 
bear  the  burden  of  their  sins;  now  he  will 
come  to  bestow  on  thein  the  blessed  conse- 
quences of  e.vpiated  and  forgiven  sin.  Before, 
he  appeared  in  sorrow  and  death,  that  they 
might  live;  now  he  will  appear  triumphant 
and  glorious,  that  they  may  appear  with  him 
in  glory.  

Ch.  10.  (5)  Summing  up  of  the  entire  high 
priestly  argumoit.     (10:  1-18.) 

Finality  of  the  work  of  Christ,  answering, 
perhaps,  to  the  third  point  in  the  general 
thesis:  First,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec; 
second,  Christ  becoming  a  High  Priest;  third, 
a  High  Priest  forever. 

Chapter  7  discusses  Christ's  priesthood  after 
the  order  of  Melchisedec.  Chapters  8  and  9, 
his  High  Priesthood,  as  the  antitype  of  Aaron, 
ministering,  through  his  own  blood,  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuar3-,  and  by  this  oflSce  intro- 
ducing a  New  Covenant.  Chapter  10  :  1-18 
may  (with  Delitzsch)  be  regarded  as  espe- 
cially emphasizing  the  idea  of  'forever.'  It 
divides  itself  into  three  parts: 

(rt)  Finality  of  Christ's  voluntary  sacrifice, 
as  opposed  to  the  symbolical  sacritices  of  the 
law.     (1-10.) 

{b)  Finality  of  Christ's  priestly  ministra- 
tion, as  opposed  to  the  oft-repeated  ministra- 
tions of  the  Levitical  priesthood.     (11-14.) 

(c)  Finality  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  of 
the  sacrifice  which  seals  it  as  effectimg  th& 
absolute  remission  of  sins.     (15-18.) 

{a)  Finality  of  Christ's  voltintary  sacrifice, 
as  opposed  to  the  symbolical  sacrifice  of  the 
law.     (1-10.) 


'That   avaipuv   is  so  used    furnishes    no   sufficient!  nientaf  meaning  of  the  two- verbs  (the  one 'to  ttiee^ 
ground  for  affirming  the  same  of  ai'a(f>ipei.v,  the  fuoda-  '  'take  up/  the  other  ''tO'bear')  beiiiigsoidi^rcrent. 

I 


130 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


CHAPTER  X. 


FOR  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
and  not  the  very  image  of  I  he  things,  can  never 
with  those  saciitices,  which  they  ottered  year  by  year 
continually,  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect. 

2  I'Or  then  would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered? 
because  that  the  worshippers  once  purged  should  have 
had  no  more  conscience  of  sins. 


1  For  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  the  good  thinffs  to 
come,  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  i  can  never 
with  the  same  saeritices  year  by  year,  which  they 
offer  continually,  make  perfect  them  that  diaw  nigh. 

2  Else  Would  they  not  have  ceased  to  l>e  ofiered,  be- 
cause the  worshippers,  having  been  once  cleansed. 


1  Mau;  ancieot  autboriiies  read  they  can. 


1.  For  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  the 
good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very 
image  of  the  things.  'The  law'  is  the 
Mosaic  law,  with  its  priestly  institutions  and 
rituals;  not,  of  course,  properly,  the  moral 
law  (though  that,  in  the  mind  of  a  Jew,  was 
never  sharply  distinguished  from  the  cere- 
monial), but  more  especially  the  ceremonial. 
The  apostle,  in  Romans,  generally  has  in  view 
the  law  under  its  moral  aspects;  our  author, 
in  Hebrews,  the  law  under  its  ritual  aspects. 
The  one  regards  it  as  requiring  holiness;  the 
other  as  symbolizing  redemption.  The  one 
finds  it  impotent  froin  the  spirituality  of  its 
demands;  the  other  from  the  carnality  of  its 
provisions.  The  "coming  good  things"  are 
here,  as  at  9  :  11,  not  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  law, 
but  the  blessings  yet  future  to  the  believers — 
complete  salvation,  remission  of  sins,  conform- 
ity and  nearness  to  God.  Of  these  blessings, 
the  law  had  but  the  shadow ;  the  gospel  has 
their  very  image.  In  the  law  these  great  spir- 
itual blessings  are  exhibited  in  mere  symbol ; 
it  imparts  nothing  of  their  substance.  The 
gospel,  although  not  as  yet  giving  them  in 
their  fullness  and  perfection,  yet  gives  their 
substantial  verity,  gives  their  very  image. 
The  term  'image'  is  chosen  designedly,  be- 
cause the  contrast  is  not  between  the  shadow 
of  these  things,  contained  in  the  law  and  the 
heavenly  things  themselves,  but  between  their 
shadow  as  contained  in  the  law,  and  their 
image  as  contained  in  the  gospel.  The  rela- 
tion of  the  Jewish  ritual  to  the  unseen  and 
epiritual  good  things,  is  that  of  the  shadow  to 
the  reality.  The  relation  of  the  gospel  sacri- 
fice and  expiation  to  them  is  that  of  an  image 
which  substantially  embodies  and  represents, 
which  gives  their  essential  nature  and  glory, 
as  'speech  is  the  image  of  thought'  ;  as  the 
Son  is  'the  image  of  the  invisible  God.'  The 
law  but  represents  these  things  in  faint  out- 
lines;   the  gospel   brings    them    home   in  a 


fruition  which  grasps  their  substantial  bless- 
edness, and  in  a  hope  which  leaves  them  still 
'good  things  to  come.' 

Year  by  year  can  never,etc.— Never  with 
the  same  sacrifices,  year  by  year,  which  they 
offer  perpetually. 

'Year  by  year'  (kot  «Viovt6i'),  some  (as  Liine- 
mann)  connect  with  'sacrifices,'  the  phrase 
thus  equivalent  to,  'with  the  same  yearly  sac- 
rifices' ;  but  with  'year  by  year'  emphatically 
placed,  Delitzsch  gives  it  its  most  natural 
grammatical  construction  (but  harsh  as  to  the 
thought),  'year  by  year  can  never' — that  is, 
can  never  as  often  as  the}'  are  repeated. 
Others  connect  it,  by  a  virtual  transposition, 
with  the  verb  '  offer'  — '  which  they  offer  year 
by  year.'  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between 
them,  and  the  idea  is  substantially  the  same 
in  all.  '  They,'  the  subject  of  '  offer,'  refers  to 
the  priests.  'Perpetually'  (ei«  to  «i)jre(t«s),  not 
the  absolute  'forever'  (ei?  rbi/  aiuiva),  but  a 
qualified  forever,  in  jyey-petuuyn,  as  7:3,  of 
Melchisedec's  priesthood. 

Make  the  comers,  etc. — Render  perfect 
them  that  approach  to  the  sacrifices,  or  to  God 
through  them.  They  that  'approach  '  are  the 
worshipers,  not  the  priests.  The  'perfecting' 
is  cleansing  spiritually'  the  conscience,  giving 
remission  of  sin  and  conscious  reconciliation 
with  God. 

2.  For  then,  etc.  (for  otherwise),  would 
they  not  have  ceased  to  be  offered  ? 
Would  not  a  single  sacrifice  have  answered 
the  purpose,  the  reality  of  expiation  b(>ing 
secured  ?  The  interrogative  construction  is  an 
emphatic  form  of  affirmation.  I  may  remark 
that,  although  the  present  tenses  here  (vert  n; 
seem  to  be  based  on  the  actual  present  ex- 
istence of  these  sacrifices,  j-et  the  verb  here 
employed — 'would  they  not  hove  ceased'  — 
seems  to  throw  doubt  on  this,  if  not  to  render 
it  decidedly  improbable.  If  the  writer  had 
distinctly  in  his  mind  the  actual  present  time, 
one  sees  not  why  he  should  not  have  said, 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


131 


3  But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance  agaiu 
nuide  of  sins  every  year. 

4  For  il  is  not  possil)le  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats  should  take  away  sins. 

5  Wherefore,  when  he  coraeth  into  the  world,  he 
saith,  Sacrifice  and  ottering  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a 
body  hast  thou  prepared  me: 


3  would  have  had  no  more  conscience  of  sins?     But 
in  those  sacrijices  there  is  a  reuienibrance  made  ol 

4  sins  year  by   year.     For  it   is   impo.ssible  that  the 
blood   of   bulls   and   gnats  should    lake  away   sins. 

5  Wherefore  when  lie  Cometh  into  the  world,  he  saitli, 

Sacrifice  and  otfering  thou  wouldest  not, 
But  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me; 


'would  they  not  cease'  (ovk  av  (iravovro).  I 
am  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  the  use  of  the 
present  tense,  wherever  employed  here,  has 
no  express  reference  to  the  actual  existence  of 
the  Jewish  ritual,  but  simply  follows  the  prin- 
ciple by  which  we  conceive  that  which  has 
existed  for  many  ages  as  always  present,  and 
that  the  use  of  the  present  here  neither  proves 
nor  disproves  the  existence  of  the  ritual  in  the 
time  of  the  writer. 

Because  that  the  worshippers,  etc. — Be- 
cause that  those  whx)  serve  (not  the  priest,  but 
the  private  worshiper),  would  have  no  longer  a 
co7isciousness  of  sins,  having  once  for  all  been 
cleansed.  Forgiveness,  although  it  does  not 
leave  the  believer  without  sin,  leaves  him 
henceforth  in  a  state  of  pardon.  The  forgive- 
ness of  one  sin  is  a  guarantee  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  all  sins.  Pardon  is  a  state,  and  though 
the  believer  must  come  to  the  Advocate  and 
Mediator  with  his  fresh  sins  for  the  fresh  ap- 
plication of  the  cleansing  blood,  yet,  having 
received  it  once,  he  is  certain  of  it  ever  after. 
The  doctrine,  therefore,  here  stated,  holds 
without  involving  the  consequences  of  instant 
sanctification. 

3.  But  in  those  sacrifices  there  is  a 
remembrance  (a  calling  to  mind)  of  sins 
year  by  year.  The  Jewish  sacrifices  can 
accomplish,  in  the  language  of  Philo,  '"not 
an  oblivion  of  sins,  but  a  calling  them  to  re- 
membrance." They  quicken  the  conscience, 
but  cannot  lull  it  to  repose.  Their  office  is 
not  to  expiate,  but  to  remind  the  soul  of  its 
need  of  expiation.  Thus  they  really  produce 
precisely  the  reverse  effect  to  that  for  which 
they  are  resorted  to.  And  this  from  the  nature 
of  the  case: 

4.  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins. 
Tiie  proposition  needs  no  proof;  the  more 
naked  the  statement,  the  more  palpable  its 
iruth.  'The  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,' 
which  here  represent  any  and  all  animals 
that  may  be  offered  in  sacrifice,  may  suggest 
the  need  of  an  atoning  death,  but  can  do 
nothing  more.  , 


5-10.  Proof  from  Ps.  40  :  7-9  that  not  ani- 
mal sacrifices,  but  a  conscious,  voluntary, 
offering  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  are 
acceptable  to  him.  By  virtue  of  this  we  are 
sanctified. 

5.  Wherefore  (considering  the  utter  ineffi- 
ciency of  all  these  sacrifices)  when  he  cometh 
into  the  world,  he  saith.     The  author  here 
introduces  Christ  as  adopting  the  language  of 
David  {Ps.40:7,seq.),  Uttered   by    him   after   his 
anointing;  and  when   now,  after  man'y  dan- 
gers and  deliverances,  he  is  in  near  prospect 
of  the  throne.     On  the  final   rending  of  the 
kingdom   from   Saul,   in   consequence   of   his 
disobedience,    and    its    being    given    over  to 
another,   God   says,   through    Samuel,   to  the 
unfaithful  king  (i  Sam.  is :  w),  "Hath  the  Lord 
as  great  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices 
as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord?     Behold, 
to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken 
than   the  fat  of  rams."     In  the  spirit  of  this 
language,    the   predestined  child   of   royalty 
utters  the  words  of  the  Psalm.    As  one  escaped 
from  hate  and  persecution,  and  passingthrough 
dangers  and  trials  on  his  wa.y  to  exaltation  and 
triumph,  and  especially  as  the  great  ance.«tral 
type  of  Christ  on  his  way  to  the  throne,  which 
was  to  find  in  Christ  its  true  Occupant  and  it* 
true   stability  and   glory,  the  language   may 
well  be  regarded  as  typical  of  his  great  Son 
and  Successor,  who,  like  himself,   hunted  by 
persecution,    like     himself,    divinely    rescued 
and  guarded,  also,   like  himself,  though  in  an 
incomparably  higher  degree,  recognized    the 
insufficiency  of  animal  sacrifices,  and  uncon- 
ditionally devoted  himself  as  the  one  accept- 
able sacrifice.  The  language,  applied  primarily 
to  David,  is  api)licable,  typically,  to  Chri.«t, 
and,  indeed,  is  put  directly  into  his  mouth,  as 
if  the  Psalmist  were  but  the  mere  ntouthpiece 
of  the  Messiah,   as  expressing  the  spirit  and 
significance    of   his    earthly   mission,    and   as 
indicating  the  foreshadowing  in  the  Old  Testji- 
nient  of  the   grand,  essential    feature   in   the 
New.      The  siuthor  quotes  somewhat   freely 
(and  apparently  from  memory)  from  the  Se|y- 
tuagint,  which  again  differs  strikingly,  though, 


132 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


G  h)  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  for  sin  thou  hast 
liad  IK)  pleasure. 

7  Then  s;ii(i  I,  Lo,  I  come  (in  the  volume  of  the  book 
it  is  written  of  me)  lo  do  tby  will,  O  God. 

8  Above  when  be  said,  Sacritice  and  oflering  and 
burnt  oileriiigs  and  offering  for  sin  thou  woulde.st  not, 
neither  hiid.st  pleasure  therein;  which  are  offered  by  the 
law ; 


In  whole  burnt  offerings    and  sacrifices  for  sin 
thou  hadst  no  plea.su re: 

Then  said  I,  Lo,  1  am  come 

(In  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me> 

To  do  thy  will,  O  Vn)<^. 
Saying  above,  Sacrifices  and   offerings   and   whole 
burnt  offerings  and  sncrijices  for  sin  thou  wouldest 
not,  neither  hadst  pleasure  therein  (the  which  are 


after  all,  not  essentially,  from  the  original 
Hebrew.  The  Hebrew  text  runs  literally 
thus  : 

Sacrifices  and  meat  offerings  thou  desirest  not, 

Kars  hast  thou  wrought  (hollowed  out,  bored)  for  me; 

Burnt  offerings  and  sufferings  thou  demandest  not. 

Then  said  I ;  Lo  I  come 

With  the  roll  of  the  book  which  is  written  regardingme 

(Or,  In  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  regarding  me), 

I  delight  to  do  thy  will,  O  God, 

And  thy, law  is  in  my  heart. 

The  Septuagint,  literally  rendered,  runs 
th  us : 

Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not, 

But  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me; 

Holocausts  and  sin  offerings  thou  didst  not  require: 

Then  I  said,  Lo  I  come. 

In  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  concerning  me  ; 

I  desired  to  do  thy  will,  O  God, 

And  thy  law  in  my  inmost  heart. 

The  deviations  of  the  Septuagint  from  the 
original  are  less  important  than  they  at  first 
seem.  The  most  .striking  one  substitutes  'a 
body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me,'  for,  "ears 
didst  thou  hollow  out  (or  open)  for  me."  The 
meaning  of  both  clauses  is  substantially  the 
satiie,  and  probably  the  Greek  translators,  to 
avoid  the  harshness  of  a  literal  rendering, 
which,  in  Greek,  would  have  been  nearly 
unintelligible,  simply  generalized  the  ex- 
pression, and  instead  of  the  more  special 
symbol  of  obedience,  '  the  ears,'  as  the  organs 
with  which  we  hearken  and  obey,  put  the 
'body'  as  the  general  instrument  of  accom- 
plishing God's  will ;  and  thus  represent  God, 
instead  of  hollowing  out  for  him  ears  with 
which  he  might  hearken,  as  framing  for  him 
a  body  with  which  he  might  execute  his  will. 
That  the  Divine  Spirit  may  have  presided 
over  the  Septuagint  translation,  and  made  the 
language  more  expressly  adapted  to  the  work 
of  David's  Antitype,  we  cannot,  perhaps, 
affirm,  yet  certainly  not  deny. 

The  other  passage,  'In  the  volume  of  the 
book,'  etc.,  admits  of  either  rendering,  and  is 
rendered  by  Hengstenberg  in  accordance  with 
the  Septuagint.     The  "scroUof  the  book"  is, 


of  course,  the  book  of  the  law,  and  especially 
Deuteronomy,  which  (Deui.  n  :i8,  i9)  was  to  be 
the  inseparable  vade  mecum  of  the  kings  of 
Israel.  '  With  this  law  in  my  hands,  which  is 
written  in  regard  to  me'  ;  or,  'In  which  rules 
are  prescribed  forme';  or,  'In  the  scroll  of 
the  law  rules  are  prescribed  for  me,'  or,  'It  is 
written  concerning  me' — either  of  these  may 
be  the  rendering  of  the  original,  and  either 
would  be  perfectly  suited  to  the  mouth  of 
David  at  this  juncture  of  his  life.  Either, 
also,  would  be  suited  to  the  Messiah,  although 
the  former  (given  in  the  Septuagint)  referring 
rather  to  a  prophecy  than  a  precept,  seems,  in 
his  case,  more  eminently  applicable.  But  it 
cannot  be  denied  (with  Delitzsch)  that  the 
whole  passage  bears  a  unique  and  almost  mys- 
terious character,  which  points  it  out  as  having 
a  typical,  and  even  prophetic,  significance, 
especially  when  brought  into  comparison  with 
some  utterances  of  our  Saviour  which  seem, 
in  some  sort,  echoes  of  it,  as  John  8:29. 
'Because  I  always  do  the  things  which  are 
pleasing  to  him  '  ;  see  17:4.  '  When  coming 
into  the  world'  may  be  understood,  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  not  of  any  particular  period,  as  his 
incarnation;  still  less,  either  of  his  entrance 
on  his  public  ministry,  or  arriving  at  the  age 
of  manhood,  or  at  the  age  of  mature  and  clear 
perception  regarding  the  nature  of  his  mission. 
Rather,  I  think,  it  has  reference  to  his  pre- 
existenc^,  and  looks  to  the  general  spirit  and 
purpose  with  which  he  submits  to  be  clothed 
with  flesh,  and  make  his  appearance  among 
men. 

I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God,  is  an  abbre- 
viation, designed  or  undesigned,  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint, 'I  come — I  desire  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God.'  The  alteration  is  in  no  way  material, 
yet  in  its  form,  as  expressing  emphatic  pur- 
pose, it  applies  with  special  appropriateness  to 
the  Messiah. 

8.  Recapitulation  and  inference.  Above 
when  he  said  {when  saying).  Sacrifice  and 
offering  and  burnt  otferings  and  offering 
for  sin  thou  wouldest  not,  neither  {nor) 
hadst  pleasure  in ;  which  are  offered  by 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


133 


9  Then  said  he,  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God. 
He  taketh  away  the  fii-st,  that  he  may  establish  the 
second. 

lU  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  through  the 
ofToriiig  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  nil. 

11  .Vud  every  jjriest  staudeth  daily  ministering  and 
offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices,  which  can  never 
take  away  si  us: 


9  offered  according  to  the  law),  tlien  hath  he  said,  Ix>, 
I  am  come  to  do  thy  will,     lie  taketh  away  ilie  lir.si, 

10  that  he  may  establish  the  second.  '  liy  which  will 
we  have  been  sanctified  through  the  ottering  of  lue 

11  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  lor  all.  And  every -priesi 
indeed  slandeth  uay  by  day  ministering  and  oiter- 
ing  oltentimes  the  same  sacrifices,  the  which  can 


1  Or,  /h i  Some  aaciciit  auitaoriiics  ruad  kigk  priett. 


{according  to)  the  law.  The  hitter  clause  is 
the  author's  characterization  of  these  various 
offerings,  bringing  tiieni  into  relation  to  his 
purpose  of  showing  the  inudequacy  of  the  law. 
'Which'  (am«t)  rather  characterizes  than 
individualizes  the  objects  offered. 

9.  Then  said  he,  etc.  —  Then  hath  he  said, 
Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  thy  will.  He  taketh 
away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the 
second.  An  inference  from  the  whole  pas- 
sage, and  a  proof  of  his  doctrine  of  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  Old  Covenant  sacrifices.  Christ's 
obedience  to  Gods  gracious  will  is  put  in  place 
of  the  sacrifices  of  the  law.  From  this  it  fol- 
lows that  Gods  'will'  represents  the  deepest 
elements  of  his  character.  His  'will'  stands 
as  the  expression  of  all  those  moral  attributes 
of  which  the  will  is  the  executive  exponent, 
and  thus  points  to  no  merely  arbitrary  purpose 
or  decision.  Animal  sacrifices  are  only  super- 
ficial. Blind,  involuntary,  without  moral  na- 
ture, they  can  in  no  way  touch  the  deeper 
springs  of  the  divine  character,  nor  truly  pro- 
pitiate it;  there  must  be  something  that 
touches  his  essential  spiritual  attributes,  that 
meets  substantially  the  claims  of  his  moral 
law.  This  the  offering  of  Christ  does.  It  is  a 
spiritual  holocaust,  offered  through  an  eternal 
spirit  as  against  a  perishable  animal  life,  as  a 
conscious,  intelligent,  voluntary  sacrifice  to 
the  will  of  God.  It  consists  in  a  perfect,  un- 
swerving obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and 
finally  in  freely  rendering  up,  in  submission 
to  that  will,  the  body  which  God  had  pre- 
pared fi>r  him.  The  Son  of  God  comes  on  the 
path  of  obedience.  He  learns  obedience  in 
the  school  of  suffering,  and  submits,  with  a 
resignation  which  meets  perfect  approval,  to 
the  death  from  which,  under  the  stress  of  sore 
temptation,  he  yet  prays  to  be  delivered.  He 
becomes  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death 
<m  the  cross.  The  passage  is  interesting  as 
intimating  (as  many  others)  the  Father's 
agency  in  the  work  of  redemption.  It  is  not 
the  merciful  Son,  placating  the  angry  Father. 
It  is  God,  so  loving  the  world  as  to  give  his 


only  begotten  Son  for  its  redemption,  and  the 
Son  cheerfully  concurring  in  and  fully  execut- 
ing his  allotted  part.  The 'will  of  God, 'then, 
is  the  broader  element  which  takes  in  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Son  as  the  mode  of  reaching  its 
end. 

10.  By  {in)  the  which  will — in  the  sphere 
of  which  will ;  not  that  of  Christ,  but  of  God ; 
this  the  higher  and  all  encompassing  element, 
under  whose  auspices,  within  whose  ordering 
scope,  the  whole  transaction  takes  place.  We 
are  (have  been)  sanctified — here  referring 
not  to  internal,  subjective,  progressive  sanctifi- 
cation,  which  gradually  ripens  the  believer 
for  heaven,  but  to  the  outward,  formal,  legal 
sanctification ;  the  once  for  all  setting  aparty 
the  consecrating,  the  instituting  of  the  new 
and  divine  relation,  out  of  which  the  sanctify- 
ing process  ('2:11,  oi  oYia^dfievot)  springs. 
Through  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  once  for  all.  'The  body  of 
Jesus  Christ'  is  inserted  here  with  allusion  to 
the  clause,  '  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me.' 
It  intimates  tliat  the  Saviour  carried  out  the 
purpose  for  which  his  body  had  been  formed 
and  given  him,  in  offering  it  up  a  free-will 
sacrifice  to  God. 

So  much  for  the  first  part  of  this  emphatic 
recapitulation  —  </te  earthly  offerinrj.  The 
offerings  of  the  law  were  animal,  blind,  invol- 
untary on  the  part  of  the  victims,  having  no 
Inherent  excellence  or  power;  that  of  Christ 
was  voluntary,  spiritual,  self-determined,  an 
act  of  obedience.  It  is  efficient,  therefore,  and 
final. 

[b)  Finality  of  Christ's  priestly  ministration 
as  opposed  to  the  oft  repeated  ministrations  of 
the  Levitical  priesthood.     (11-14.) 

The  hi;,-h  priestly  self-presentation  and  offer- 
ing of  the  royal  and  eternal  Antitype  of  Mel- 
chisedec  is  in  like  manner  as  the  offering  of 
his  body,  final. 

11.  And  every  priest,  cic— every  priest 
indeed  standeth  ministeriny  day  by  day,  and 
offering  frequently  the  same  sacrifices,  which 
can  never  takeaway  sins.     The  'priest'  here 


134 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


12  But  this  man,  after  he  had  ofTered  one  sacrifice  for 
sins  fur  ever,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God; 

13  From  hencefoith  expecting  till  bis  enemies  be 
made  his  footstool. 

14  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever 
them  that  are  sanciitied. 

15  W/iereof  tlie  Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  to  us: 
for  alter  that  he  had  said  before, 

IG  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  them 
after  those  days,  s;iith  the  Lord;  I  will  put  my  laws 
into  their  iieans,  and  in  their  minds  will  1  write  them  ; 

17  And  their  sins  and  iuiquities  will  I  remember  no 
more. 

18  Now  where  remission  of  these  is,  there  is  no  more 
ofl'ering  for  sin.     ■ 


12  never  take  away  sins;  but  he,  when  he  had  ofl'ered 
one  sacrifice  tor  '  sins  for  ever,  sat  down  oh  the  right 

13  hand   of  God;    from   henceforth  expecting  till   his 

14  enemies  be  made  the  footstool  of  his  feet.     For  by 
one  offering  he  hath  perlected  for  ever  them  that  are 

15  sanctified.     And  the  Holy  S|iiril  also  beareth  witness 
to  us:  for  after  he  hatli  said, 

16  This  is  the  2  covenant  that  "i  will  make  with 

them 
After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord; 
I  will  put  my  laws  on  their  heart, 
And  upon  their  mind  also  will  I  write  them ; 
then  sait/i  he, 

17  And  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will  I  remem- 

ber no  more. 

18  Now  where  remission  of  these  is,  there  is  no  more 
ottering  for  sin. 


1  Or,  sins  J /or  ever  sat  down,  etc 2  Or.  testament 3  Gr.  I  will  covenant.. 


Stands  clearly  for  the  'high  priest,'  with 
whom  Christ  comes  properly  into  comparison. 
'Standeth' — in  contrast  with  the  royal  Mel- 
chisedec  Priest  who  '  took  his  seat '  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  'Which  can  never  take  away 
sins.'  'Which'  (airtKe?),  as  above,  ver.  9,  not 
merely'  enumerates,  but  characterizes — of  a 
kind  which.  On  this  clause  Delitzsch  re- 
marks: "The  author  does  not  mean  to  say 
that  the  sins  for  whose  expiation  the  offerings 
•were  brought  remained  unforgiven  to  the 
worshiper,  but  that  the  offerings  could  pro- 
duce no  perfect  peace  of  conscience,  no  as- 
sured certainty  of  a  gracious  state,  no  actual 
internal  cleansing,  and  foundation  of  a  new 
spiritual  life."  What  I  suppose  the  author 
means  properly  to  say  is,  that  the  offerings 
themselves  had  no  power  to  produce  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  or  to  work  any  new  spiritual  life. 
That  all  this  might  have  existed,  and  in  the 
case  of  all  genuine  worshipers  veaWy  did  exist, 
I  suppose  he  would  by  no  means  deny.  There 
was  piety,  there  was  true  spiritual  life,  there 
was  consciously  forgiven  sin  under  the  Old 
Testament  ritual.  But  it  was  not  the  product 
of  that  ritual.  That  symbolized  salvation  :  it 
had  the  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come; 
but  it  never  created  the  first  holy  emotion,  nor 
inspired  the  first  breath  of  spiritual  joj'. 

12.  But  this  man,  etc. — He  himself  (or 
emphatic  he)  after  offering  one  sacrifice  for 
sins  took  his  seat  forever  at  the  right  hand  of 
God.  A  royal  Priest,  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chisedec,  with  an  untransferable  priesthood. 

13.  From  henceforth,  etc  —  henceforth 
avmiting  till  his  enemies  beinade  his  footstool. 
According  to  the  promise  made  him  at  his 
exaltation,  Ps.  110  :  1:  "Sit  thou  at  my  right 
hand  until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  foot- 
stool."     (Mail.  22:44;  1  Cor.  15  :  25.) 


14.  For  by  (with)  one  offering  he  hath 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sancti> 
fied — and  therefore  needs  not  renew  that 
offering,  as  the  victims  slain  under  the  law, 
which  could  bring  no  perfection,  and  required 
constant  renewal. 

(c)  Finality  of  the  New  Covenant,  of  the 
sacrifice  which  seals  it  as  effecting  the  absolute 
remission  of  sins.     (15-18.) 

And  finally,  to  all  this  the  Holy  Spirit 
sets  his  seal  by  declaring  that  under  tiie  New 
Covenant,  ratified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  a 
work  of  inward  regeneration  is  wrought,  and 
the  sins  of  the  believer  are  effaced  froin  his 
consciousness  forever,  and  thus  sets  aside  all 
possible  need  of  any  further  offering. 

15-17.  The  Holy  Ghost  (Spirit)  also  is  a 
(beareth)  witness  to  us.  The  Holy  Spirit,  as 
the  special  Inspirer  of  Scripture,  and  thus,  so  to 
speak,  responsible  for  all  which  Scripture  con- 
tains, and  giving  to  it  his  sanction,  is  referred 
to  by  the  author,  3  :  7.  See  also  9:8.  For 
after  that  he  had  said  {having  said),  This 
is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with 
them  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord — 
giving  my  laws  on  their  hearts,  and  vpon  their 
mind  also  I  will  write  them,  and  their  sins  a7id 
their  iniquities  I  will  rememherno  more.  The 
point  of  the  quotation  lies  in  ver.  17.  Yet  the 
others  are  also  important  as  showing  that  true 
and  proper  forgiveness  stands  only  in  connec- 
tion with  a  system  which  can  reach  and  reno- 
vate the  spiritual  nature.  We  have  now  the 
final  inference. 

18.  Now  where  remission  of  these  is, 
there  is  no  more  {7%o  longer)  offering  for 
sin.  Whether  'no  longer'  (oiic  «ti)  be  taken 
here  as  logical  or  temporal  (either,  equally  ac- 
cordant with  Greek  usage),  it  matters  little; 
the  conclusion  is  the  same.    The  complete, 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


135 


unconditional  forgiveness  of  sin  renders  un- 
necessary any  further  expiatory  sacrifice,  and 
the  system  which  actually  imparts  that  must 
supersede  forever  the  system  which  could  only 
point  to  it 

With  this  triple  reiteration  of  the  forevei — 
tiie  absoluteness  and  finality  of  the  work  of 
Christ  closes  this  brief,  but  striking  epilogue. 
Let  us  again  glance  back  over  it.  That  work 
is  final. 

First.  In  substituting  a  free,  voluntary,  obe- 
dient sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Christ,  in  place 
of  the  animal  sacrifices  of  the  law. 

Second.  In  substituting  the  royal,  untrans- 
ferable Melchisedec  high  priesthood  of  Christ, 
with  its  single  high-priestly  oblation,  for  the 
ineffectual  and  therefore  oft-repeated  minis- 
trations in  the  sanctuary  of  the  Levitical 
priests. 

Third.  In  introducing  a  new,  spiritual  cove- 
nant, which  engraves  its  record  on  the  heart, 
and  in  effacing  the  guilt  of  the  conscience  ren- 
ders furtlier  offering  unnecessary. 

Ill  each  of  these  divisions  our  ear  catches 
the  echo  of  that  'forever'  (eU  tok  aiioya),  which 
at  6  :  20  forms  the  closing  topic  of  his  grand 
thesis:  'After  the  order  of  Melchise- 
i^Ec;'. — 'a  high  priest' — 'forever.' 

Tlie  argument  is  completed.  The  three 
grand  sections  of  the  discussion  proper  are 
closed.  Jesus,  the  Apostle  of  a  New  Cove- 
nant, greater  than  the  angels,  the  messengers 
and  ministers  of  the  Old;  Jesus,  the  Founder 
of  the  New  Testament  house  of  God,  the  spir- 
itual Israel,  greater  than  Moses,  the  founder 
and  lawgiver  of  the  household  of  ancient 
Israel ;  and  finally  and  especially — for  this  was 
the  grand  topic  to  which  the  author  was  has- 
tening, and  all  that  precedes  was  but  subordi- 
nate and  introductory — Jesus,  the  great  High 
Priest  of  the  New  Covenant,  comprising  in 
liis  own  person  the  regal  and  eternal  dignity 
symbolized  in  Melchisedec,  and  the  power 
really  to  expiate,  forgive,  and  bring  near 
t«  God,  symbolized  in  Aaron  —  all  these 
topics  have  passed  successively  before  us, 
and  each  has  been  touched  briefly,  grandly, 
weightily,  as  befitted  the  weighty  theme. 

But  the  author's  aim  was  practical,  not  theo- 
retical. This  sublime  discussion,  like  all  other 
portions  of  Scripture,  had  its  origin  in  imme- 
diate spiritual  necessities.  Its  purpose  was  to 
re-establish  the  waning  faith  of  converts  from 


Judaism,  who  were  in  imminent  danger  of 
lapsing  back  to  their  old  worship  and  aposta- 
tizing from  the  living  God.  With  a  view  to 
this,  he  has  already  thrice  broken  the  thread 
of  the  discussion,  in  order  to  give  to  his  doc- 
trine a  most  impressive,  practical  turn,  and 
now,  the  argument  proper  being  completed, 
the  whole  remainder  of  the  Epistle  assumes  a 
hortatory  character,  and  that,  too,  never  for  a 
moment  forgetting  the  one  leading  purpose  of 
warning  its  readers  against  apostasy.  Until 
its  very  last  chapter,  it  never  so  far  loses  sight 
of  this  as  to  turn  to  those  general  exhortations 
which  belong  to  the  Christian  life.  The  key- 
note struck  at  tlie  beginning  is,  with  a  marvel- 
ous concentration  and  intensity  of  purpose, 
carried  through  to  the  end.  With  the  skill, 
too,  which  marks  its  general  structure,  the  au- 
thor so  manages  as  to  take  up  the  thread  of  ex- 
hortation here  precisely  where  he  had  dropped 
it  at  4  :  16,  where  he  first  formally  entered  on 
the  subject  of  Christ's  priesthood.  There  the 
injunction  is:  'Let  us  approach  with  boldness 
to  the  throne  of  grace' ;  here,  '  Having  there- 
fore boldness,  let  us  approach  with  a  true 
heart,'  in  full  assurance  of  faith. 


PART  II.     HORTATORY. 

Exhortation  to  the  readers,  in  view  of  their 
having  such  a  High  Priest,  and  access  to 
the  heavenly  throne,  to  draw  near  with  bold- 
ness and  maintain  their  fidelity  to  their  Chris- 
tian profession  ;  and  this  enforced  by  the  ter- 
rible consequences  of  apostasy,  and  by  an 
appeal  to  them  to  secure  by  steadfastness, 
until  the  now  near  end,  the  fruits  of  their 
former  sufferings  and  fidelity.     (19-39.) 

(rt)  Exhortation  to  approach  God  boldly  by 
the  new  and  living  way  into  the  sanctuary 
opened  in  Christ,  to  stir  up  each  other  in  love, 
and  not  forsake  the  Christian  assemblies. 
(19-25) 

(6)  Enforcement  of  this  exhortation  by  set- 
ting forth  (as  at  6  :3-8)  the  fearful  conse- 
quences of  apostasy.     (26-31.) 

(c)  The  author  reminds  them  encouragingly 
of  their  former  sacrifices  for  Christ,  and  urges 
them  not  to  lo.se  the  reward  of  their  labors, 
but  to  endure  with  faith  and  jjatience  during 
the  brief  interval  until  the  Second  Coming. 
(32-39.) 


136 


HEBREWS. 


[Cii.  X. 


19  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into 
the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus, 

20  By  a  new  and  living  way,  which  he  hath  conse- 
crated for  us,  through  the  vail,  that  is  to  say,  his  fiesh; 

21  And  luwiiig  s.  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God; 


19  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into 

20  the  holy  place  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  the  way 
which  he  dedicated  for  us,  a  new  and  living  way, 

21  through  ihe  veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh  ;  and  liav- 


Another  of  the  numerous  triplets  into  which 
the  divisions  of  this  Epistle  naturally  falls. 

(rt)  Exhortation  to  approach  God  boldly, 
to  stir  up  each  other  to  love,  and  not  to  forsake 
the  Christian  assemblies.     (19-25.) 

19.  Having  therefore,  brethren,  bold- 
ness, etc.— /or  the  entering  into;  literally, 
'for  the  entrance  of  the  sanctuary' — that  is, 
the  hcrtvenly  Holy  of  Holies,  figurative  for  the 
iniinediute  presence  and  communion  of  God. 
By  (m)  the  blood  of  Jesus.  The  connec- 
tion of  this  clause  is  variously  given.  By 
many  (with  Bleek),  "an  entrance  in  or  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus,"  to  which  Delitzsch  objects 
that  entering  in  or  with  blood  is  strictly  a  high- 
priestly  act.  But  is  not  the  believer's  entrance 
into  the  sanctuary  conceived  as  strictly  in  or 
by  the  blood  of  Jesus?  Jesus  goes  in  by  his 
own  blood,  but  as  Forerunner,  leading  his 
people  after  him,  who  thus  enter  in  or  by  his 
blood.  By  Delitzsch  the  construction  is  given, 
''boldness,  or  confidence  in  the  blood  of  Jesus' ; 
'boldness  or  confidence,'  that  is,  which  restson 
the  sacrifice  of  Jesus.  By  others,  as  Liine- 
mann.  it  is  connected  with  the  previous  clause 
as  a  whole:  '  having  boldness  for  the  entrance 
...  in  the  blood  of  Jesus.'  Perhaps  there  is 
not  much  choice  in  the  constructions.  In 
either  case  the  "blood  of  Jesus,"  shed  in  sac- 
rifice on  the  cross,  and  figuratively  borne  into 
the  heavenly  Holy  of  Holies,  there  to  be  sprin- 
kled on  the  mercy  .seat,  is  the  efficient  means 
of  realizing  that  approach  to  God  which  the 
blood  of  Old  Testament  victims  only  symbol- 
ized. 

20.  By  a  new  and  living  way,  etc. — 
Which  he  dedicated  for  us,  as  a  new  and  living 
way.  'Which'  {entrance,  eiaoSo?)  is  described 
as  'new,'  because  hitherto  unopened  and  un- 
known; 'living,'  not  because  it  leads  to  life, 
not  as  equivalent  to  life-giving,  but  in  contrast 
with  the  natural  and  lifeless  '  way  '  of  stone, 
that  led  the  high  priest  into  the  earthly  sanc- 
tuary; a  living,  spiritual  path,  which  brings 
to  the  true  heavenly  goal.  This  entrance 
Christ  dedicated  by  himself  passing  over  it. 
Through  the  vail,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh. 


The  flesh  or  body  of  Christ  is  compared  to  the 
vail  which  hung  before  the  earthly  Holy  of 
Holies,  because  as  long  as  his  body  remained 
uncrucified,  an  entrance  into  that  sanctuary 
was  impossible,  In  the  crucifixion  the  body 
of  Christ  and  the  vail  of  the  sanctuary  were 
rent  simultaneously.  The  figure,  however,  is 
here  merely  accidental.  We  are  not  to  sup- 
pose that  the  author  regarded  the  vail  of  the 
tabernacle  as  symbolizing  properly  the  body 
of  Christ.  It  is  only  so  conceived  for  the  mo- 
ment, with  perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  '  living 
way'  that  took  its  place.  The  vail  partakes 
of  that  character  of  life.  The  vail  of  the  old 
tabernacle  was  dead  matter;  the  living  (though 
dead)  body  of  Christ  takes  its  place. 

But  shall  we  construct  the  'through'  («i<i) 
with  the  'way'  [locally,  "through  the  vail," 
as  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Liinemann,  Kurtz),  or 
with  'dedicated,'  taking  it  instrumentully 
"by  means  of"  (as  Delitzsch,  who  says  that 
the  idea  is  not  that  for  us  the  way  leads 
through  the  vail,  since  this  was  done  away  by 
Christ )?  Though  this  is  true,  yet  as  the  n)eans 
by  which  Christ  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies 
was  his  own  broken  body,  and  he  entered  as 
the  Forerunner  of  his  people,  and  it  is  not  un- 
natural to  conceive  that  through  which  we 
pass  instruinentally  as  also  that  through  which 
we  pass  locally,  I  think  the  local  construc- 
tion with  'way'  (o&6v)  more  natural.' 

21.  And  having  a  [great)  priest  over  the 
house  of  God.  Our  first  ground  of  encourage- 
ment for  drawing  near  to  God  is  that  our  great 
Forerunner  has  passed  through  the  vail  and 
opened  a  path  by  which  we  may  follow  him, 
so  that  the  vail  no  longer  exists,  except  rather 
as  a  means  of,  than  an  exclusion  from,  en- 
trance. Our  second  is,  that  in  that  awful 
sanctuary,  that  house  of  God,  we  have  a  Great 
Priest  to  make  intercession  for  us,  and  shield 
our  weakness  under  the  blaze  of  the  Divine 
Majesty.  'Great  Priest'  is  not  here  a  syn- 
onyiTi  for  '  High  Priest,'  but  rather  designates 
Christ  as  exalted  in  kingly  and  priestly  ma- 
jesty. The  'house  of  God  '  seems  here  to  be 
the  heavenly  house,  the  abode  of  God,  and 


1  With  the  verb  we  should  have  expected  an  added  iio(\6iiv. 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


13T 


22  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  in  full  assur- 
ance of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience,  and  our  Dodies  washed  with  pure  water. 

23  Let  us  hold  fast  the  profession  of  our  faith  without 
wavering  ;  for  he  is  faithtul  that  promised ; 


22  ing  a  great  priest  over  the  house  of  God  ;  let  us  draw 
near  with  a  true  heart  in  '  fulness  of  faith,  hav- 
ing our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  2 conscience: 

23  and  having  our  body  washed  with  pure  water,  let  us 
bold  fast  the  confession  of  our  hope  that  it  waver 


I  Or,  full  assurance 2  Or,  conscience,  and  our  iody  watked  with  pure  water :  let  us  hold  fast. 


the  predestined  dwelling  place  of  his  chil- 
dren. The 'house  of  God'  (3:2)  was  God's 
house  on  earth  (and,  perhaps,  also  in  heaven), 
the  organized  coniinunity  of  his  people,  the 
New  Testament  '  house  of  Israel.'  Here,  it  is 
rather  that  '  house  of  my  Father  in  which 
are  many  mansions,'  where  God  dwells,  and 
where  Jesus  has  gone  to  prepare  a  place  for 
his  disciples. 

22.  Let  us  draw  near — that  is,  to  God,  to 
the  heavenly  sanctuary — with  a  true  heart 
— with  a  real,  genuine  heart  (aAijdii'^s),  a  heart 
that  answers  to  the  name;  hence,  not  false, 
not  hypocritical — in  full  assurance  of  faith. 
At  6  :  11  he  exhorts  the  readers  to  strive  after 
the  'full  assurance  (n-A>jpo<^opta)  of  hope'  ;  here, 
with  very  similar  idea,  to  come  in  'the  full 
assurance  of  faith.'  Hope  looks  forward  to 
the  end ;  faith  lays  hold  of  the  means.  Hope 
fastens  on  the  anticipated  glories;  faith  on 
him  and  his  work,  by  whom  they  are  to  be 
realized.  By  faith  we  dismiss  all  doubts  of 
our  right  to  enter  the  path  previously  trod  by 
the  Redeemer,  and  of  the  eflScacy  of  his 
atonement  and  intercession. 

Having  {had)  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience.  This  clause,  I  think, 
stands  immediately,  and  most  naturally,  con- 
nected with  the  preceding.  It  completes  the 
statement  of  the  subjective  moral  conditions 
under  which  we  can  draw  near  to  God,  and 
assigns  the  ground  on  which  we  may  have 
the  'true  heart'  and  the  'full  assurance  of 
fiiith '  ;  namely,  that  our  hearts  have  been 
sprinkled  fiom  an  evil  conscience.  Until  the 
'blood  of  sprinkling,'  instead  of  being  sprinkled 
over  our  bodies,  falls  upon  our  hearts,  and 
cleanses  away  the  sense  of  guilt,  replacing  it 
with  conscious  reconciliation,  pardon,  and 
spiritual  peace,  there  can  be  no  '  true  heart,'  no 
real  confidence  of  faith.  As  then  the  people 
of  the  Old  Covenant  were  sprinkled  outwardly 
by  Moses  with  the  blood  of  the  unconscious 
victims,  so  let  us  come  with  boldness,  having 
had  onr  hearts  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
him  who,  through  an  eternal  spirit,  offered 
himself  to  God.     This  participial  clause  (as 


also  the  following),  is  not  a  part  of  the  exhor- 
tation, but  is  the  basis  of  the  exhortation. 
These  clauses  express  the  ideal  condition  of 
the  believers.  He  has  had  his  heart  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  his  body  washed 
in  pure  water.  These  are  the  conditions  of 
his  entrance  on  the  Christian  life.  The  sprink- 
ling of  the  heart  from  an  evil  conscience  is 
the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  gospel — it  is 
the  primary  gift  of  Christ ;  and,  as  having 
had  this  sprinkling,  and  the  subsequent  and 
corresponding  external  washing  of  baptism, 
the  disciples  are  exhorted  to  all  Christian  con- 
fidence and  fidelity. 

23.  And  having  (Aarf)our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water,  let  us  hold  fast  {main- 
tain) the  confession  of  our  hope  unwaver- 
ing). Calvin  and  some  others  have  found 
in  this  first  clause  a  reference  (Ezek.  36:25) 
to  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit;  but  such  a 
reference  is  forbidden  alike  by  the  use  of 
the  term  'body,'  showing  a  material  appli- 
cation of  water,  and  the  connection  of  the 
passage.  The  purifying  rites  of  the  Old 
Covenant  were  partly  with  blood  and  partly 
with  water.  Expiation  was  symbolized  by 
blood — simple  cleansing,  and  moral  purity,  by 
water.  The  New  Covenant  meets  the  Old  at 
every  point.  For  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  beasts  upon  the  body  it  has  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  upon  the  heart.  For 
the  lustrations  with  water,  by  which  the  priests 
cleansed  themselves  when  entering  on  their 
duties,  and  especially  for  that  complete  bathing 
of  the  body  which  the  high  priest  underwent 
before  entering  the  inner  sanctuary  (i-ev.  i(!:4), 
the  Christian  priesthood,  before  following 
Christ  within  the  vail  into  the  presence  of 
God,  must  also  submit  to  the  same  symbol- 
ical clean:ing,  though  vastlj' more  significant. 
This  is  clearly  baptism—"  not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  toward  God."  Thus  the  au- 
thor unites  the  outward  and  the  inward;  the 
efficient  and  the  sacramental  elements  of  the 
Christian  life;  deliverance  from  the  guilt  and 
power  of  sin  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  oq 


138 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


24  And  let  us  consider  one  another  to  provoke  uuto 
love  and  to  good  works : 

25  Not  lorsaking  the  assembling  of  ourselves  together, 
as  the  manner  of  some  is ;  but  exhorting  one  aiwlher: 
and  so  much  the  more,  as  ye  see  the  day  approaching. 


24  not;  for  he  is  faithful  who  promised  :  and  let  us  con- 
sider one   another  to  provoke   unto   love  and   good 

25  works;  not  lorsaking  our  own  assembling  together, 
as  the  custom  of  some  is,  but  exhorting  one  anolher; 
and  so  much  the  more,  as  ye  see  the  day  drawing 
nigh. 


the  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  the 
soul,  and  then  this  moral  renovation  and 
purity — a  death  to  sin  and  a  resurrection  to 
holiness — symbolized  in  the  bath  of  baptism. 
As  the  preceding  clause  naturally  connects 
itself  with  what  goes  before,  so  this  connects 
itself  with  what  succeeds — with  baptism  asso- 
ciates itself  'confession'  (6iio\oyia),  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  devotion  to  Christ.  Only 
by  thus  separating  the  clauses  do  we  avoid 
a  very  abrupt  transition.  Unwavenng,  un- 
bending^ is  the  predicative  qualification  of 
'confession.'  Let  us  hold  our  confession  un- 
bending, so  that  it  shall  not  waver.  The 
author  proceeds  to  assign  a  reason ;  For 
faithful  is  he  that  promised.  God,  who 
made  the  promise,  is  faithful  and  true  (ixhess. 
5: 24;  icor.  1 :9),  "he  gives  by  Covenant  and  by 
oath"  (6:13-18);  and  by  both,  alike,  it  is  im- 
possible for  him  to  deceive. 

24.  Verse  22  exhorts  believers  to  come  in 
full  confidence  oi  faith ;  verse  23  to  hold  un- 
wavering the  confession  of  hope ;  the  present 
verse  completes  the  triad  of  Christian  graces. 
And  let  us  consider  one  another  to  pro- 
voke {stir  up)  unto  love  and  to  good 
works.  The  idea  is  not  (as  the  original  might 
be  possibly  construed),  'let  us  contemplate 
one  another,  for  the  purpose  of  finding  in  our 
common  example  a  stimulus  to  love  and  good 
works,'  but,  '  !et  us  give  heed  to  one  another, 
that  we  may  stimulate  one  another,'  etc.  As 
Christian  brethren,  members  of  the  same  great 
household,  having  access  to  the  same  heavenly 
sanctuary,  and  fellow-worshipers,  let  us  regard 
one  another's  interests,  and  each  strive  for  the 
good  of  all. 

25.  Not  forsaking  the  assembling  of 
ourselves  together — the  gathering  together 
for  Christian  communion  and  worship.  This, 
of  cour.«e,  does  not  mean  not  abandoning  alto- 
gether the  Christian  assemblies,  which,  of 
course,  would  be  a  token  of  final  apostasy, 
and  to  which  the  language,  'as  the  manner  of 
some  is,'  would  be  inapplicable;  but  that  fail- 
ure, frequently  and  statedly,  to  gather  them- 
selves in  Christian  assemblages,  whether  from 
indifference  or  fear  or  doubt,  which  would 


endanger  their  Christian  steadfastness,  and 
certainly  check  their  spiritual  growth.  As 
the  manner  of  some  is.  Some  had  already 
given  this  token  of  indifference  and  half- 
heartedness  in  the  Cliristian  profession,  and 
thus  laid  themselves  liable  to  just  rebuke. 
The  language  does  not  mark  formal  apostates, 
but  those  who  might  be  on  the  road  to  apos- 
tasy. But  exhorting  one  another — as,  by 
clear  implication,  they  could  do  most  effect- 
ually in  their  assemblies,  where  they  could  be 
fired  by  a  common  zeal.  And  (by)  so  much 
the  more,  as  ye  see  the  day  approaching 
{drawing  nigh).  '  The  day '  is  the  day  of 
Christ,  the  day  of  the  Lord's  return,  which, 
according  to  his  prediction,  was  supposed  to 
be  near,  which,  in  fact,  was  near,  and  of  which 
the  tokens  were  already  visible.  That,  ac- 
cording to  the  whole  scheme  of  Hebrew 
prophecy,  our  Lord  puts  his  symbolical  and 
anticipatory  coming  in  the  breaking  up  of  the 
Jewish  state,  and  the  final  extinction  of  the 
old  theocratic  system,  in  place  of  that  final 
and  greater  coming,  which  the  former  but 
foreshadowed,  and  that,  according  to  this  prin- 
ciple, we  are  to  interpret  the  numerous  New 
Testament  prophecies  on  this  point,  seems 
well  nigh  certain.  Two  things  are  clear: 
First,  that  our  Lord  repeatedly  gave  his  dis- 
ciples to  understand  that  his  return  was  to  be 
speedy  and  before  the  passing  away  of  that 
generation,  and  that,  accordingly,  such  an 
expectation  existed  in  the  church;  secondly, 
that,  in  fact,  this  coming  was  only  figurative, 
while  that  for  which  it  stood — the  Parousia, 
in  its  absolute  sense — was  far  in  the  future, 
and  was  known  to  be  so  by  the  Spirit  that  pre- 
sided over  the  whole  scheme  of  prophecy. 
Indications  of  the  coming  day  of  wrath  about 
to  break  over  devoted  Jerusalem  were  doubt- 
less already  visible.  The  emphasis  lies  not  on 
'day'  or 'approaching,'  but  on  'see.'  It  is 
by  how  much  his  readers  see  the  day  of  the 
Lord  apy)roaching,  by  how  much  its  lurid 
light  is  already  breaking  along  the  horizon  of 
the  future,  that  they  are  exhorted  to  fidelity. 
(h)  The  exhortation  sharpened  by  the  ter- 
rible consequences  of  apostasy.     (26-31.) 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


139 


26  For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  i 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  reiuaiiielh  no  more 
sacriticc  for  sins, 

27  But  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and 
fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries.  | 


26  For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received 
the   knowledge  of   the   truth,  there   reniaineth   no 

27  more  a  sacrilice  for  sins,  hut  a  tertain  fearful  expee- 
taliou  of  jadguieut,  and  a  '  fierceness  of  tire  which 


1  Or,  jealousy. 


26.  For  if  we  sin  wilfully  (voluntarily). 
The  sin  is  clearly  thut  of  apostasy — that  is, 
as  denoted  by  the  present  participle  (aiiap- 
TavovTiav),  that  abiding  m  sin,  that  yielding 
ourselves  permanently  to  its  power,  which 
marks  an  evil  heart  of  settled  unbelief.  And 
the  sin  itself  is  not  so  much  sinful  indulgences, 
which  spring  up  in  consequence  of  departing 
from  God,  as  those  internal  acts  wliich  consti- 
tute thut  departure  itself.  It  is  not  sin,  in  its 
incidental  effects,  in  its  blossoms,  that  is  struck 
at;  but  sin,  in  its  essential  nature,  and  in  its 
deepest  root;  unbelief,  with  its  natural  con- 
comitants. Similarly  John  uses  the  term 
(1:39),  "Every  one  that  is  begotten  of  God 
does  not  commit  sin;  because  his  seed  re- 
maineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin  because  he 
is  begotten  of  God.''  To  'sin  voluntarily'  or 
'  wilfully,'  then,  is  voluntarily  to  renounce 
the  faith  which  we  have  reposed  in  Christ, 
and  make  a  formal  return  to  the  beggarly 
elements  which  we  had  abandoned.  After 
we  have  received  [receiving)  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth— after  being  'enlightened' 
"^nd  '  tasting  the  good  word  of  God.'  '  Knowl- 
edge' (tTriyfajffis),  here  equivalent  to  'recogni- 
tion,' '  acknowledgment,'  not  merely  a  passive 
illumination  {yvC>a<.^),  but  one  which  had  been 
accompanied  by  a  positive  movement,  and  a 
full  and  ratifying  assent  of  the  mind  ;  thus  a 
stronger  and  more  emphatic  word  than  the 
latter  (yvcio-is). 

On  the  question  whether  this  marks  a  true 
child  of  God,  and,  if  so,  whether  it  is  possible 
for  him  actually  so  to  sin,  see  the  remarks  at 
6:3-5.  I  would  here  simply  repeat :  (1)  There 
is  not,  in  all  the  Epistle,  I  think,  a  positive  dec- 
laration that  the  persons  in  question  do  fall 
away.  The  only  thing  positively  stated  is  the 
desperate  consequence  of  such  falling,  in  case 
it  may  happen.  The  power  of  divine  grace 
has  been  exhausted,  and  the  case,  therefore, 
is  hopeless.  (2)  There  are  repeated  statements 
made  throughout  the  New  Testament  that  the 
truly  regenerated  cannot  fall  away.  Such, 
among  others,  is  the  passage  (i  Johns  :9)  quoted 
above ;  such  John  10  :  28,  29;  Rom.  8  :  35-39. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  passages  like  these 


could  be  written,  if  it  were  a  fact  that  many 
who  had  been  regenerated  by  the  grace  of 
God,  did  actually  fall  again  under  the  final 
power  of  the  devil.  (3)  In  the  whole  New 
Testament,  apostasy  is  regarded  as  .mhjectively 
possible.  The  apo.stle,  who  probably  had  no 
doubt  of  his  final  salvation,  yet  says,  "1  keep 
my  body  under,  lest  after  preaching  to  others 
I  myself  prove  reprobate."  And  so  every 
where  he  treats  the  per.>5everance  and  final 
salvation  of  believers  as  resting  instrumentally 
on  their  efforts;  and,  subjectively,  they  are 
always  in  danger  of  falling  away.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  only  puts  this  general  doctrine, 
which  pervades  the  entire  New  Testament,  in 
a  stronger  and  more  solemn  light,  by  how 
much  the  case  was  more  pressing,  and  the 
danger  more  imminent.  But  neither  here  nor 
elsewhere  is  there  an  explicit  declaration  of 
the  possibility  of  that  falling  away  of  believers, 
which,  if  admitted,  revolutionizes  the  New 
Testament  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  goes  far 
to  take  away  the  sacredness  and  divinity  of  a 
heavenly  birth. 

There  reniaineth  no  more  (a)  sacrifice 
for  sins.  Either,  there  will  be  no  repeated 
oflering  for  sin  ;  Christ  will  not  die  again  ;  or, 
the  benefits  of  that  offering  which  has  been 
made  will  be  no  longer  available  to  them. 
So  far  as  the  language  may  refer  to  the  oh-; 
jectively  impossible  falling  away  of  true  be- 
lievers, it  is  the  former;  so  far  as  to  the  lapse 
of  the  highly  enlightened,  but  not  really 
regenerate,  it  is  the  latter.  If  Christians  fall 
away,  the  entire  resources  of  salvation  are 
exhausted  ;  the  blood  of  Christ  has  proved  its 
utmost  power  and  been  inefficacious.  If  others 
fall  away  who  have  reached  a  very  high  grade 
of  spiritual  enlightenment,  who  liave  exj)er- 
ienced  all  of  divine  influence  i?<<  regeneration, 
their  recovery  is  morally  impossible.  God 
will  not  bless  the  eflbrts  for  their  renewal,  but, 
like  the  field  that  has  answered  the  rains  and 
sunshine  only  with  thcjrns  and  thistles,  will 
give  them  over  to  the  burning. 

27.  The  last  verse  gave  the  negative  side 
of  their  punishment;  the  present  gives  its 
positive.     But   {there  remaineth)  a.   certain 


140 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


2S  He  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy 
under  two  or  three  witnesses: 

2y  Of  how  luiicli  sorer  puuishnient,  suppose  ye,  shall 
he  be  thought  worthy,  who  halh  trodden  under  foot  the 
Sou  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing,  aud  hath 
done  despite  uuto  the  Spirit  of  grace? 


28  shall  devour  the  adversaries.  A  man  that  hath  set 
at  nought  Moses'  law  dieth  without  compassion  on 

29  the  u-ord  of  two  or  three  witnesses :  of  how  much 
sorer  punishment,  tliiiik  ye,  sbiill  he  be  judged 
worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of 
God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  i  an  unholy  thing,  aud 


1  Gr.  a  common  thing. 


fearful    looking    for    of  judgment.      By 

ail  elegant  metaphor  the  epithet  '  fearful  ' 
is  transferred  from  the  'judgment'  to  the 
exi)ec'tation  of  it,  the  nature  of  the  judg- 
ment being  thus  inferable  from  that  of  the 
foreboding  of  it.  'Judgment'  ((cpiVn)  is  here, 
as  occasionally  elsewhere,  equivalent  to  con- 
demnation 'KaTdLKpLfTii),  'a  certain  '  (tU),  giving  a 
certain  vagueness  to  the  representation,  and 
imjil^'ing  it  as  indescribable,  heightens  its  fear- 
ful character.  And  fiery  indignation  (a 
wrath  of  fire),  which  shall  {is  about  to)  de- 
vour the  adversaries.  The  two  clauses  give 
the  entire  elements  of  their  condition.  Their 
present  allotment  is  an  inward,  fearful  antici- 
pation of  vengeance;  their  future  is  an  out- 
ward 'wrath  of  lire'  that  will  devour  them  at 
tlie  final  judgment  which  they  shudderingly 
anticipate.  'Wrath  of  fire'  (n-upbs  ^^Ao?),  not 
'fiery  indignation,'  as  in  the  Common  Ver- 
sion. The  fire  itself  in  which  that  day  shall 
be  revealed  (I  Cor.  3  :  13,  "  For  the  day  shall 
disclose  it  because  it  is  revealed  in  fire"), 
is  personified  and  represented  as  putting  forth 
its  wrath.  'About  to'  ((it'AAoi/ros)  refers  to  the 
speediness  of  the  coming  wrath.  They  could 
see  the  day  approaching  in  which  Christ  would 
come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  take 
vengeance  on  his  enemies.  It  is  not  always 
near  in  precisely  the  sense  in  which  it  was 
then  ;  for  then,  in  awful  symbol,  it  was  just  at 
band ;  but  it  is  always  near  to  the  eye  of  faith 
which  rccl«)ns  that  "  the  Lord  is  not  slack  con- 
cerning his  promise  as  men  count  slackness.'' 
The  language  clearly  alludes  to  Isa.  26:11; 
Septuagint,  26  :  11 :  "Wrath  (^ijAos)  shall  seize 
an  ignorant  people,  and  now  fire  will  devour 

the  adversaries"    (wOp  tou«  vnevavriovi;  tStrai). 

28.  An  emphatic  repetition  of  tlie  sentiment 
expressed  in  2:2,  3,  and  of  the  sentiment 
(though  more  indirectly  expressed)  of  3  :  7-19. 
What  is  stated  hypothetically  (though  not 
douhtingly)  in  chapter  2  is  here  stated  posi- 
tively. He  that  despised  (any  one  setting 
at  nought i  a9£T>/<Tos,  doing  away  with,  annul- 
ling, abrogating,  so  far  as  in    his  power;  see 


deeTij<ris,  7  :  18)  the  law  of  Moses  died  with- 
out mercy  {compassion)  under  two  or  three 
witnesses.  Many  minor  violations  of  the 
Mosaic  law  were  punished  with  death  ;  but  the 
special  reference  here  seems  (as  is  natural)  to 
cases  of  blasphemy  (Lev.  24:  n-is),  idolatry,  and 
instigation  thereto  (Deut.  17:2-7),  especially,  per- 
haps, the  latter,  as  here  the  condition  of  two 
or  three  witnesses  is  especially  prescribed. 
This  falling  away  from  Jehovah  was  more 
than  a  mere  ordinary  transgression.  It  was  a 
virtual  annulling  (ieeTTjo-t?)  of  that  law;  a  re- 
nunciation of  its  authority,  and  thus  stands 
in  a  like  category  to  falling  away  from  Christ. 
The  argument  proceeds  from  the  less  to  the 
greater. 

29.  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment, 
suppose  {think)  ye,  shall  he  be  thought 
worthy.  In  this  'think  ye'  the  author  leaves 
the  case  to  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  his 
hearers.  They,  in  view  of  the  relative  de- 
grees of  guilt,  may  decide  for  themselves  on 
the  relative  degrees  of  punish tnent  in  the  two 
cases.  'Deemed  worthy' — namely,  by  God 
in  the  final  judgment.  As  there  can  be  no 
worse  earthly  punishment  than  death,  thtit 
here  spoken  of  must  of  course  be  after  death. 
Who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of 
God.  'Trod  down,'  'trampled'  (KaTaTraTtir,  as 
Matt.  6  :  9,  "they  will  trample  them  under 
their  feet"),  the  strongest  expression  of  con- 
tempt and  act  of  insult.  Of  course,  it  is  not 
intended  to  aflRrm  that  these  apostates  treat 
with  wanton  contempt  and  contumely  the 
Saviour  whom  they  abandon,  but  that  thoy 
virtually  do  so;  such  is  a  fair  interpretation 
of  their  act  of  desertion.  In  turning  their 
backs  on  Christ  they,  as  it  were,  denj'  and 
crucify  him  afresh,  and  ratify  the  rejection  of 
him  by  their  fathers.  This  is  written,  we 
must  remember,  to  those  whose  fathers  and 
nation  had  but  recently,  with  reviling  and 
blasphemy,  rejected  the  Messiah.  And  halh 
counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
wherewith  {in  which)  he  was  sanctified, 
an    unholy  thing    {impure).     The   blood   of 


Ch.  X] 


HEBREWS. 


141 


30  For  we  know  hiiu  that  hath  said,  Vengeance 
helonytllt  unto  me,  I  will  recompense,  sailh  the  Lord. 
And  again,  The  Lord  shall  judge  his  people. 

31  h  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
living  God. 


30  hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace?  For  we 
know  hiiu  who  said,  Vengeance  helongeth  unto  me, 
I  will  recomj)ense.    And  again,  The  Lord  shall  judge 

31  his  peoi)le.  it  i.s  a  fearful  tiling  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  living  God. 


Christ  shed  in  ratification  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant is  the  blood  of  the  Covenant.  In  this 
blood— in  its  sphere,  through  it,  by  it— the 
believer  had  been  sanctified,  had  been  made 
hofy  (aytos),  here  referring  not  so  much  to  that 
proce.ss  of  personal  sanctification,  which  each 
believer  inwardly  undergoes,  as  to  the  formal 
outward  relation  of  saints,  holy  or  consecrated 
ones,  into  which  all  are  brought  by  virtue  of 
their  faith  in  Christ.  The  blood  of  Christ,  by 
which  this  sacred  cleansing  bas  been  wrought, 
the  apostate  from  him  thus  decides  to  be  un- 
clean ;  whether  bnpure  as  opposed  to  ])ure  (as 
Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Liinemann,  etc.),  or  com- 
7no)i  as  opposed  to  sacred  (as  De  Wette,  Del- 
itzsch),  it  is  difficult  to  decide.  Perhaps  both 
conceptions  are  substantially  included  in  it. 
Hath  done  despite  unto  (outraged,  treated 
contumelionsLy)  the  Spirit  of  grace.  All 
gracious  influences  which  bad  wrought  upon 
him  were  the  product  of  the  Spirit.  It  was 
the  Spirit  tiiat  had  enlightened  him  (John 
16:13,  "he  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth"), 
that  had  quickened  him,  that  had  applied  to 
him  the  sanctifying  efficacy  of  the  blood  of 
Christ.  As  all  spiritual  life  is  the  product  of 
the  Spirit,  religious  apostasy,  as  it  is  a  tramp- 
ling on  the  blood  of  Christ  as  its  formal  and 
legal  author,  so  is  heaping  contumely  on  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  as  its  efficient,  internal 
author.  The  one  is  not  intended  to  mark  the 
unpardonable  sin,  or  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  more  than  the  other.  Both  are  differ- 
ent aspects  of  the  same  act.  The  Spirit  of 
grace  is  either  the  Spirit,  as  the  gift  of  grace 
(as  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Liinemann),  or,  better 
(with  Bohme,  Delitzsch,  Moll),  as  the  efficient 
principle  of  grace. 

30.  For  we  know  him  that  hath  said, 
Vengeance  beiongeth  unto  me,  I  will  rec- 
ompense, saith  the  Lord.  And  again. 
The  Lord  shall  {will)  judge  his  people. 
These  citations  indicate  the  punishment  which 
nniy  be  expected  to  fall  upon  these  willful 
transgressors.  God  is  not  only  a  God  of  grace, 
but  a  God  of  judgment.  '  We  know  him  that 
hath  said'  is  at  once  an  elegant  and  an  em- 
phatic mode  of  saying,  "We  know  what  is 
implied  in  the  language  of  him  who  says," 


etc.  It  i)oints  to  our  knowledge  of  the  recti- 
tude and  truthfulness  of  him  who  makes  the 
utterance.  The  citations  are,  the  first  from 
Deut.  3:^ :  35,  the  second  from  Deut.  32  :  36, 
repeated  in  Ps.  135:  14.  The  first  deviates  in 
form  alike  from  the  Hebrew  original  ("ven- 
geance is  mine  and  recompense'),  and  still 
more  from  the  Septuagint  ("In  the  day  of 
vengeance  I  will  recompense"),  but  accords 
with  the  form  of  quotation  in  Rom.  12  :  19. 
Whether  influenced  in  its  form  by  that  of 
Romans,  or  both  founded  on  some  current  and 
familiar  mode  of  expressing  the  sentiment,  is 
doubtful.  Nor  does  it  matter,  as  the  thought 
is  unaffected.  In  the  former  pa.ssage  there  is 
in  the  original  a  direct  declaration  of  God's 
judicial  severity  in  dealing  with  his  enemies, 
and  it  is  obviously  and  directly  in  point.  In 
the  second,  there  is  a  seeming  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  original  import  of  the  passage  and 
the  use  to  which  the  author  api)lies  it.  But  it 
is  only  seeming.  The  Lord  will  judge  his 
people  by  interposing  mercifully  in  their  be- 
half. But  this  merciful  interposition  in  their 
favor  involves  the  infliction  of  vengeance  on 
their  enemies.  The  judgment  of  God  for 
Israel  in  Egypt  was  a  judgment  -upon  and 
against  the  Egyptians. 

31.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  living  God.  This  closes  and 
puts  the  seal  on  this  terrible  passage  of  warn- 
ing. It  is  the  sentiment  which  spontaneously 
rises  to  the  mind  in  view  of  the  crime  and  him 
against  whom  it  is  committed.  The  willful 
transgressor  throws  himself  into  the  hands  of 
an  avenging  God.  David,  when  offered  a 
choice  between  punishments,  chose  pestilence 
rather  than  war,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
better  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  God  than  of 
man.  David's  choice  was  made  in  faith,  but 
even  so  he  found  this  alternative  sufficiently 
terrible.  God's  chastising  and  correcting 
judgjiients  are  fearful ;  how  much  more  then 
his  punitive!  If  he  scourges  so  severely  those 
whom  he  will  save,  how  much  more  those 
wliom  he  will  destroy!  If  the  cup  of  mercy  is 
often  mingled  with  so  bitter  ingredients,  how 
when  "  the  wine  of  his  wrath  is  poured  out  with- 
out mixture  into  the  cup  of  his  indignfttioal  " 


142 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


">2  But  call  to  remeniln-aiice  the  former  days,  in 
which,  after  ve  were  illuiuiDated,  ye  endured  a  great 
fight  of  afflicfions; 

43  Partly,  whilst  ye  were  raade  a  gazing-stock  both 
by  reproaches  ajid  afflictions;  and  jiartly,  whilst  ye 
became  companions  of  iheni  that  were  so  used. 

34  For  ye  had  compassion  of  me  in  my  Itonds,  and 
took  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  your  goods,  knowing  in 
yourselves  that  ye  have  iu  heaven  a  better  and  an  en- 
during substance. 


32  But  call  to  remembrance  the  former  days,  iu 
which,  after  ye  were  enliglilened,  ye  endured  a  great 

33  conflict  ol  sufferings;  partly,  being  made  a  gazing- 
stock  both  by  reproaches  and  afflictions;  and  partly, 
becoming  partakers  with  them  that  were  so  used. 

34  For  ye  liolh  had  compassion  on  tliem  that  were  ia 
bonds,  and  took  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  your  posses- 
sions, knowing  '  that  ye  have  lor  yourselves  a  better 


1  Marty  anctent  AUitiortties  read  that  ye  have  your  own  selves/or  a,  etc. 


(c)  Eiict)urageineiit  from  past  fidelity,  and 
exliortation  not  to  throw  away  its  fruits. 
(32-39.) 

The  author,  as  before  in  chapter  6,  follows 
his  awful  threat  (*-^)  by  words  of  encourage- 
ment, so  here  again  'changes  his  voice' 
(Gal.  * :  20),  and  presents  considerations  of  a  more 
cheering  character.  He  will  not  overwhelin, 
but  alarm.  He  will  not  drive  them  to  despair, 
but  stir  up  by  all  possible  means  any  smolder- 
ing embers  of  spiritual  life.  He  turns  to  the 
brighter  side  of  the  picture. 

32.  But  call  to  remembrance  the  former 
days,  in  which,  after  hieing  illuminated, 
ye  endured  a  great  fight  of  afflictions  (a 
conflict  of  sufferings).  Whether  'illumi- 
nated '  here  refers  to  their  being  enlightened  as 
to  the  deficiencies  of  Judaism  and  the  nature 
of  Christianity,  or,  as  elsewhere,  is  simi)ly  a 
term  for  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ, 
spiritual  enlightenment  in  general,  is  perhaps 
doubtful.  I  think  it  is  the  latter.  The  lan- 
guage here,  as  noticed  by  Chrysostom,  is  the 
carefully  chosen  language  of  commendation. 
They  'endured'  (vTronefetf),  implying  resolu- 
tion and  firmness.  Tiiey  endured  not  trials  or 
temptations,  but  a  struggle,  a  wrestling,  a  con- 
flict (ii9Ai?<^ti'),  which  called  forth  theirvoluntary 
and  active  powers,  and  a  great  (n-oAA.ji/)  strug- 
gle— no  (ordinary  one — of  suffering  and  afflic- 
tion. To  what  /nets  this  refers,  whether  the 
early  history  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Pal- 
estine, including  all  its  various  persecutions, 
or  possibly  (with  Alford)  more  recent  perse- 
cutions in  Rome,  it  is  impossible  to  determine. 
Titefactthiitit  wasasecondgeneration,  and  not 
the  early  members  of  the  Jerusalem  Church, 
that  would  be  now  addressed,  is  against  (yet 
not  decisively)  the  former  supposition. 

33.  Partly,  Avhilst  ye  Avere  made,  etc. 
On  the  one  hnnd^  being  made  a  gazing  stock 
(a  spectacle).      Both    by   reproaches    and 

afflictions    (eeaTpi^raffoi,     equivalent    to    Qiarpov 

yeiTjS^i/ai,  1  Cor.  4:9:  "To  be  made  a  spectacle 


to  the  world  and  to  angels  and  men"). 
Through  reproaches  and  afflictions  heaped 
upon  them,  they  were  held  up,  as  it  were,  to 
the  contemptuous  gaze  of  the  world.  On  the 
other  hand,  becoming  partakers  with  them 
loho  found  themselves  so  situated ;  namelj',  in 
affliction  and  reprotich.  '.So'  not  referring 
back  to  endured,  and  denoting  the  firmness 
with  which  they  endured  the  struggle,  but  to 
the  'being  a  gazing  stock  by  afflictions  and 
reproaches,'  and  indicating  that  these  Chris- 
tians had  not  only  themselves  borne  affliction 
and  obloquy  for  the  cause  of  Christ,  but  had 
also  attached  themselves  to  those  who,  amid 
persecution  and  reproach,  had  maintained  the 
Christian  faith,  and  bestowed  on  them  sympa- 
thy and  succor.  The  Acts  is  full  of  the  names 
of  eminent  leaders  in  the  Church,  as  Stephen, 
Peter,  James  the  First,  Paul,  etc. — objects  of 
hate  and  persecution,  and  many  of  them  los- 
ing their  lives  for  the  sake  of  Ciirist.  It  is  to 
sympathy  and  aid  extended  to  such  as  these 
that  this  probably  refers. 

34.  This  expresses  the  same  thought  as  the 
preceding  in  reverse  order.  For  ye  had, 
etc. — ye  both  sympathized  with  them  that  were 
in  bonds,  and  ye  received  with  joy  the  plunder- 
ing of  your  goods.  The  expression  is  em- 
phatic, and  indicates  a  record  of  the  must 
satisfactory  character.  Thej'  took  the  plun- 
dering of  their  property,  not  only  with  resig- 
nation, but  with  joy.  Thej'  'rejoiced  and 
were  exceeding  glad'  when  they  suftered, 
knowing  that  'great  was  their  reward  in  hea- 
ven.' (Matt.  5:11.)  Knowing  that  ye  have  for 
yourselves  a  better  and  an  enduring  possession. 
The  added  '  in  heaven '  of  the  Textus  Receptus 
is  probably  a  gloss.  With  or  without  it,  the 
'  possession '  is  obviously  the  heavenly  in- 
heritance— the  'incorruptible'  and  'undefiled' 
inheritance  of  1  Peter  1  :  4.  'Have  for  your- 
selves' contrasts  enii)hatically  the  treasure 
which  is  their  own  with  the  earthly  goods 
which  they  held  at  the  pleasure  of  others. 


Ch.  X.] 


HEBREWS. 


143 


35  Cast  not  away  therefore  your  confidence,  which 
hath  great  recompense  uf  reward. 

3()  For  ve  have  need  of  patience,  that,  after  ye  have 
done  the  will  of  (iod,  ye  might  receive  the  promise. 

37  For  yet  a  little  while,  and  he  that  shall  come  will 
come,  and  will  not  tarry. 

38  is'ow  the  just  shall  live  by  faith:  but  if  any  man 
draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him. 


35  possession  and  an  abiding  one.    Cast  not  away  there- 
fore your  boldness,  which  bath  great  recompense  of 

36  reward.     For  ye  have  need  of  '  paiieuce,  that,  hav- 
ing done  the  will  ol  Ijod,  ye  may  receive  the  promise. 

37  For  yet  a  very  little  while, 

He  that  cometh  shall  come,  and  shall  not  tarry. 

38  But  'my  righteous  one  shall  live  by  laith  : 

And  if  he  sliriuk  back,  my  soul  hulh  no  pleasure 
in  him. 


1  Or,  ttedfattnett 2  Some  aocieiit  autborilies  read  (Ae  rij/Ateoua  one. 


35.  The  verse,  in  view  of  this  noble  record 
of  the  past,  renews  the  exhorttition.  Cast  not 
away  therefore  (/a^  an-o^dATiTe) — either,  'Lose 
not  with  an  involuntary  loss,'  or,  'Throw  not 
away  voluntarily.'  The  verb  will  admit  either 
signification.  The  latter  seems,  here,  prefer- 
able, as  it  is  also  more  strictly  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  Your  confidence  —  your  joyful 
assurance  —  which  hath  a  great  recom- 
pense. Their  joyful  Christian  confidence  is 
not  to  be  wantonly  thrown  awaj',  or  lightly 
parted  with.  It  has  an  intrinsic  value.  God 
acknowledges,  tipproves,  and  will  reward  it, 
in  the  fulfillment  of  all  the  hopes  which  it 
involves.  This  fulfillment  God,  although 
strictly  as  a  matter  of  mere  grace,  yet  in  some 
sort  as  a  record  (similarly  as  at  6  :  10)  for  their 
firm  and  glad  confidence,  will  bestow  upon 
them. 

36.  For  ye  have  need  of  patience  {stead- 
fast endurance),  in  order  that,  doing  the 
will  of  God,  ye  may  obtain  the  promise. 
The  two  last  clauses  may  be  resolved  either 
temporally;  'that,  after  doing  the  will  of 
God,  ye  may  obtain,'  etc.  ;  or,  instrument- 
ally,  'that  by  doing  the  will  ye  may  ob- 
tain'; or,  both,  regarded  as  parts  of  our 
comple.x  idea;  'doing  ye  may  obtain,'  equiv- 
alent to  'ye  may  do  and  obtain.'  The  idea 
is,  then,  you  need  steadfastness  that  ye  may 
do  the  will  of  God,  and,  so  doing,  obtain 
the  promise.  At  all  events,  the  idea  is  not 
that,  having  already,  in  time  past,  done  the 
will  of  God,  ye  may  in  the  future  obtain  the 
promise.  Both  the  doing  and  the  obtaining 
are  yet  in  the  future,  and  both  conditioned 
upon  steadfast  endurance.  Of  course,  the 
doing  of  God's  will  is  not  attributed  to  the 
Christian  in  the  .«ame  absolute  and  perfect 
sense  as  in  ver.  7  (I  come  to  do  thy  will)  to 
Christ.  That  indiciites  a  voluntary  obedience 
taking  the  place  of  a  mere  animal  sacrifice, 
as  the  ground  of  an  eiBcacious  atonement; 
this  indicates  conformity  to  God's  will  and 
law,  not  as  a  ground,  but  as  a  condition,  of 


salvation.  To  'receive  or  obtain  the  promise' 
here,  as  often  elsewhere,  its  fultiUnient.  They 
have  been  saved,  as  yet,  only  or  mainly  in 
hope.  The  fulfillment,  the  'enduring  sub- 
stance,' comes  when  Christ  shall  return  to 
those  who  look  for  him  without  sin  unto  sal- 
vation.    So  the  next  verse. 

37,  38.  A  free  quotation  from  Hab.  2 :  3,  4, 
introduced  by  a  phrase  from  the  Septuagintof 
Isa.  26  :  20.  For  yet  a  little  while  {how 
little!)  This  from  Isa.  26:20,  where  God 
calls  his  people  to  enter  into  their  chambers, 
and  hide  thein  a  very  little  until  the  storm  be 
overpast.  And  he  that  shall  come  {cometh) 
will  come,  and  will  not  tarry.  Now  {but) 
the  just,  etc.  —  On  accmint  of  his  faith  shall 
he  live,  and  if  he  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  no 
pleasure  in  him.  The  words  are  freely  quoted 
from  a  passage  in  Habiikkuk,  which  has  pri- 
mary reference  to  the  coming  overthrow  of 
the  Chaldean  dominion,  and  looks  from 
thence,  according  to  the  habitual  shortening 
of  prophetic  perspective,  forward  to  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah.  The  Septuagint  version 
runs  thus:  "Because  the  vision  is  yet  for  a 
time,  and  it  will  appear  at  last,  and  will  not 
come  to  nought.  If  he  be  tardy,  wait  for 
him;  for  he  will  surely  come,  and  will  not 
tarry.  If  (one)  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  no 
pleasure  in  him  ;  but  the  just,  he,  by  his  faith, 
shall  live."  In  the  Hebrew  original,  the  '  vis- 
ion ' — namely,  the  revealed  destruction  of  the 
Chaldean  power — is  still  the  subject  of  the 
following  verb,  'will  come  and  will  not  delay.' 
The  Septuagint  translators  have  given  it  a 
personal  reference  to  God  as  the  Jlessiah,  and 
our  author  applies  it  definitely  to  Christ  and 
to  his  second  coming.  He  has  also,  in  citing, 
reversed  the  order  of  the  two  last  clauses, 
perhaps  accidentally,  perhaps  to  make  thd 
verb  'shrink,  draw  back'  (iuroffTciAjfrai)  refer 
more  definitely  to  the  'past'  as  its  subject. 
In  the  original  (Septuagint),  the  sulyect  of 
the  verb  is  clearly  indefinite,  'if  he,'  that  is, 
'any  one  draw  bixck'  ;  and  there  is  no  gram- 


144 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  X. 


39  But  we  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  perdi-  I  39  But  we  are  not '  of  them  that  shrink  back  unto  per- 
tion ;  but  of  them  that  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  dition  ;  but  of  them  that  have  faith  unto  the  2  saving 

I        of  the  soul. 

1  Or.  0/  shrinking  back  .  .  but  o/ faith '2  Or,  gaining. 


matical  reason  why  it  may  not  be  so  in  our 
Epistle.  Looking  at  the  Old  Testament  pas- 
sage, I  am  strongly  inclined  to  render,  as  in 
the  English  version,  "and  if  any  man  draw 
back,"  and  this  not  so  much  on  theological  as 
philological  grounds.  So  far  as  the  sense  is 
concerned,  it  is  entirely  in  harmony  with  the 
uniform  tone  of  this  Epistle  to  put,  hypothet- 
ical ly,  the  case  of  the  believer's  falling  away, 
and  then  to  declare  the  hopelessness  of  his 
condition.  Granting  that  the  verb  'shrink, 
or  draw  back'  refers  to  'the  just,'  it  makes 
just  such  a  supposition  as  is  repeatedly  eke- 
where  made;  and,  as  in  all  the  other  passages, 
does  not  commit  the  author  to  the  positive 
doctrine  that  the  really  just  man  ever  does 
fall  away.  The  original  again  reads,  either, 
"My  (God's)  just  man  shall  live  by  faith," 
or,  "  The  just  man  shall  live  by  my  faith  "  — 
that  is,  "faith  in  me."  The  text  in  Hebrew 
is  uncertain  ;  but,  with  Delitzsch,  etc.,  we  give 
it  as  cited  in  Kom.  1  :  17,  where  Paul  makes  it 
the  starting  point  and  text  of  his  elaborate  and 
noble  exposition  of  the  gospel  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification. Of  course,  as  the  author  has  not 
made  a  formal  quotation,  he  has  not  studied  a 
precise  adherence  to  the  original  text.  He 
has  rather  accommodated  it  to  his  purpose 
than  strictly  cited  it  as  proof.  Still,  there  can 
be  no  just  doubt  that  he  has,  in  the  spirit  of 
an  enlarged  and  just  interpretation,  trans- 
ferred the  Old  Testament  picture  to  the  New. 
All  the  lines  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecy 
converge  on  the  Messiah,  and,  with  the  pro- 
gress of  historical  development,  on  his  first 
coming,  as  the  beginning,  and  on  his  second 
coming,  as  the  crown  and  consummation  of 
his  work.  Tiie  Old  Testament  faith  changes 
its  outward  form,  but  not  its  essential  char- 
acter, as  it  fixes  itself  definitely  on  a  revealed 
Messiah,  and  a  Messiah  yet  again  to  be  re- 
vealed in  glory.  So  the  just  shall  live  in 
consequence  of  his  trust  in  God,  but  at  no 
time  since  the  fall  could  this  trust  have  been 


a  mere  confidence  in  the  integrity,  purity, 
and  justice  of  God  without  a  felt  need  of 
atonement  and  forgiveness;  and  since  the 
appearing  of  Christ,  it  can  take  no  other  spe- 
cific direction  than  toward  his  expiatory  and 
interceding  work.  In  this  alone,  the  sin-  and 
guilt-stricken  soul  of  man  finds  its  needs  met. 
We  may  not  know  who,  or  how  many,  from 
the  Gentile  world  have  been  saved  witi)out  the 
proclamation  of  the  gospel,  but  we  hazard 
nothing  in  saying  that  whoever  have,  have 
been  saved  through  the  intercession  of  Christ, 
and  so  saved  that  their  first  glimpse  of  him 
and  his  redemption,  wherever  obtained,  was 
welcomed  by  them  as  precisely  adapted  to 
their  spiritual  needs,  as  "all  their  salvation 
and  all  their  desire."  '  My  soul,'  Hebrew  for 
'I' — that  is,  God,  whose  language  the  writer 
is  citing— 'hath  no  pleasure  in  him'  ;  that  is, 
abhors  and  rejects  him. 

39.  But  again  the  writer's  kindly  feeling 
induces  him  to  hope  for  the  best  in  regard  to 
his  wavering  brethren,  and  to  let  them  feel 
that  he  has  not  lost  confidence  in  their  stead- 
fastness. But  Ave  are  not  of  them  that 
{such  as)  shrink  back  unto  perdition,  but 
of  them  that  believe  {are  of  faith)  to  the 
saving  of  the  soul.  "Are  not  of  shrinking 
back" — that  is,  we  belong  not  to,  are  not  the 
children  of,shrinking  back  ;  are  not  such  as  to 
shrink  back.  'Unto  perdition' — that  is,  so 
that  our  course  should  end  in  perdition,  in 
eternal  destruction.  'Unto  perdition'  ex- 
presses the  natural  and  inevitable  result  of 
the  drawing  back,  as  '  unto  the  gaining,  or 
savingof  the  soul '  expresses  the  natural  result 
of  faith.  They  are  not  added  as  that  which 
the  recreant  on  the  one  hand  and  the  believer 
on  the  other  seeks  as  his  goal,  but  as  the 
writer's  statement  of  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  either  course  respectively.  '  Per- 
dition '  is  the  losing  of  the  soul;  the  'gaining 
of  the  soul '  is  eternal  life. 


Ch.  XI.] 


HEBREWS. 


145 


N 


CHAPTER  XI. 

OW  faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  I    1      Now  faith  is  '  assiiraneeof<Ain<7j  hoped  for,  a  2 con- 
evidence  of  things  not  seen.  ,  I    'i  viciion  of  things  not  seen.    For  therein  the  elders 


1  Or,  (Ae  giving  substance  to  2  Or.  test. 


Cli.  11.  (2)  Encouraging  survey  of  the 
achievements  of  faith  in  Jewish  history. 
Muster  roll  of  the  heroes  of  faith.     (1-40.) 

Illustrutions  from  Old  Testament  and  an- 
cient Jewish  history  of  the  power  of  that  faith 
wliich  is  inculcated  on  the  readers.  Tlie  author 
uses  the  term  '  faith  '  not  in  its  narrower — more 
strictly,  New  Testament — sense,  for  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  condition  of  salvation,  but 
in  its  broader  ciiaracter,  as  that  principle 
witiiin  us  wiiich  passes  out  of  the  visible  and 
the  present  into  the  sphere  of  the  invisible 
and  the  future,  which  thus  postpones  sensible 
olijects  to  spiritual  realities,  and  the  evanes- 
cent present  to  the  abiding  future.  Inasmuch 
as  this  faith  exists  only  in  hearts  which  God 
lias  touched  by  his  grace, — a  grace  bestowed 
only  through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  either 
past  or  prospective, — there  is  no  contradiction 
between  the  doctrine  of  this  Epistle  and  the 
prevailing  New  Testament  doctrine  in  regard 
to  faitii.  Paul,  in  Romans,  and  our  author, 
in  Hebrews,  are  contemplating  the  subject 
from  different  points  of  view.  The  one  has 
his  eye  on  the  moral  law,  and  on  the  need  of 
a  righteousness  appropriated  by  faith  to  cover 
our  sin  and  guilt;  the  other  is  looking  at  the 
manner  in  which  this  in-dwelling  principle  of 
faith  would  evince  itself  in  all  ages,  even  when 
there  was  as  \'et  no  clear  revelation  of  Christ. 
Paul  himself,  on  other  occasions,  uses  the  word 
in  the  same  sense;  as  2  Cor.  5:7,'  We  walk 
by  faith,  not  by  sight.' 

(a)  Illustrations  of  faith  in  the  antedeluvian 
believers.     (1-7.) 

1.  Now  faith  is,  etc. — But  faith  is  confi- 
dence in  things  hojted  far,  a  conviction  of 
the  things  that  are  not  beheld.  Some,  from 
the  position  of  "  is  "  (cVni-)  and  the  absence  of 
the  article  from  'faith'  (irio-rtv)  have  supposed 
tiiey  must  construct '  and  there  is  a  faith,'  mak- 
ing it  a  verb  (\f  e.visteiice,  instead  of  a  copula, 
and  thus  affirming  emphatically  that  there 
is  such  a  grace  as  faith,  with  the  following 
nouns  in  apposition:  A  faith — to  wit,  a  confi- 
dence, etc.  But  this  without  necessity.  Such 
apposition  of 'is'  (ecmv),  as  copula,  and  such 
an  absence  of  the  article  with  the  subject,  are 


among  the  familiar  usages  of  the  language. 
The  advanced  position  of  the  verb  simply 
throws  emphasis  on  it.  'But  faith  is,'  etc.— 
equivalent  to.  But  that  which  faith  is,  is  this. 
We  have  thus  a  definition  of  faith,  and  a 
definition  adapted  to  the  purpose  of  the 
writer.  He  considers  it  in  its  two  elements 
as  related  to  the  future  and  as  related  to 
things  tinseen.  It  seems  now  to  be  the  author's 
purpose  not  to  state,  rhetorically,  what  faith 
may  prove  to  those  who  possess  it,  but  strictly 
what  is  its  nature  as  a  subjective  exercise. 
The  word  'substance'  (\nt6<T-ta<Ti.^),  therefore, 
which  means,  primarily,  a  standing  under, 
and  then  a  foundation,  substance,  but  which 
then  comes  in  later  Greek  to  mean  confide^ice 
(see  3  :  14 ;  2  Cor.  9  :  4),  seems  to  have  much 
more  naturally  this  meaning  here  (so  Luther, 
and  most  recent  interpreters) ;  and,  again, 
for  'evidence,'  or,  proof  (eAeyxo«),  we  under- 
stand here  naturally  the  conviction  furnished 
by  the  proof,  the  clear  assurance  of  things 
not  seen.  We  thus  have  a  beautiful  and 
complete  definition  of  faith  applicable  to 
all  the  cases  to  which  the  author  proceeds  to 
apply  it.  The  statement  that  'Faith  is  the 
substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence 
of  things  not  seen,'  is  indeed,  rhetorically, 
just  and  beautiful,  but  less  pertinent  to  the 
author's  purpose  than  that  which  looks  at 
this  grace  in  its  strictly  subjective  nature. 
This  answers  the  question  which  we  natu- 
rally ask,  "What  was  faith,  as  exercised  by 
those  saints  of  the  elder  time?"  It  was  an 
abiding  confidence  in  anticipated  good,  and  a 
clear  conviction  of  unseen  realities.  It  seems 
uncertain  whether  'things'  (wpay/oioTui') belongs 
to  the  preceding  clause  or  the  following.  The 
Greek  interpreters  construct  it  mostly  with 
the  preceding;  the  modern,  mainly  on  rhyth- 
mical grounds,  with  the  following.  I  in- 
cline to  the  earlier  construction.  It  seems  to 
me  that  while,  perhaps,  mere  rhythm  would 
favor  the  later  construction,  rhetorical  force 
would  point  to  the  other.  But  it  matters 
little. 

2.  For  by  it  (in  this)  the  elders— they  of 
the  elder    time,   elders    not    merely  on    the 


146 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XL 


■  For  by  it  the  elders  obtained  a  good  report. 
3  Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  the  word  of  (iod,  so  that  things  which  are 
seen  were  not  luade  of  things  which  do  appear. 


3  had  witness  borne  to  them.  By  faith  we  und<rrstand 
that  the  •  worlds  have  been  framed  by  the  word  of 
(jod,  so  that  what  is  seen  bath  not  been  made  out  of 


1  Gr.  agea. 


ground  of  age,  but  of  dignity;  looking  upon 
tlieni  far  back  in  the  past,  we  naturally  asso- 
ciate them  with  the  dignity  and  venerableness 
of  age — obtained  a  good  report  (we7-e  at- 
tested) received  a  good  attestation,  alike  from 
God,  who  approved  tiiem,  and  history,  that 
has  recorded  their  deeds.  'In  this'  is  prob- 
ably to  be  constructed  directly  with  the  verb 
— not,  "Being  in  this,  they  were  attested," 
but,  "they  were  attested  in  this,"  'they  re- 
ceived tiieir  attestation  in  this.' 

The  author  passes  now  to  a  catalogue  of  the 
ancient  heroes  of  the  faith.  He  would  natur- 
ally begin  with  Adam  ;  but  as  what  is  recorded 
of  him  is  rather  a  lamentable  lapse  from  faith 
than  an  illustration  of  it,  and  as  he  leads  the 
mind  back  to  the  very  scene  of  creation,  our 
author  commences  by  illustrating  the  opera- 
tion of  faith  in  connection  with  this  great, 
prime  fact  of  history  and  article  of  belief. 

3.  By  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds  were  (have  been)  framed  by  the 
word  of  God — In  order  that  not  from  tilings 
which  are  apparent  should  have  sprung  that 
which  IS  seen. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  author's  statement 
that  our  recognition  by  faith  of  the  creation 
of  the  world  by  the  word  of  God,  is  Incon- 
sistent with  the  fact  that  this  creation  is  matter 
of  express  record,  and  that  we  acquire  the 
knowledge  from  that  record.  True;  but  in 
reply,  we  say  that  this  record  itself  appeals  to 
the  principle  of  faith  within  us,  without  which 
we  could  not  appreciate,  and  should  not  accept, 
the  record.  Faith  is  that  general  principle  of 
our  nature  which,  according  to  the  definition 
(ver.  1)  enables  us  to  pass  from  the  visible  to 
the  invisible,  to  rise  above  the  phenomenal 
into  the  realm  of  spiritual  reality  and  spiritual 
truth.  Faith,  then,  accepts  the  testimony 
which  God  gives  concerning  creation;  it  es- 
tablishes reason,  intellect  (vovi)  upon  its  throne 
in  opposition  to  sense ;  it  enables  us  to  discover 
the  evidences  that  the  universe  has  sprung 
from  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God,  instead 
of  having  its  origin  in  material  and  sensible 
causes.     We  understand  (voovixtv),  we  have  an 


intellectual,  rational  perception,  as  Paul,  in 
Romans,  declares  that  the  invisible  things  of 
God  are  clearly  seen  from  the  creation  of  the 
world,  being  understood  (roov/ucro)  from  his 
works.  So  reason,  under  the  influence  of 
faith,  recognizes  God  as  the  Author  and  Con- 
troller of  the  universe.  'The  worlds'  (oiwras) 
— that  is,  the  whole  system  of  created  things, 
the  created  universe.  Moll  makes  these  seuns 
(aioii/es)  to  be  the  laws  and  potencies  of  the 
spiritual  world,  out  of  which  have  sprung, 
secondarily,  the  things  which  are  seen,  and 
which  thus  form  the  contrast  to  the  'things 
which  appear.'  But  as  it  seems  to  me  without 
reason,  and  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  sim- 
plicity and  justness  of  the  thought.  'The 
word  of  God'  is  not  here  the  Logos,  the  hy- 
postatic Word,  but  (as  1  :  4)  the  utterance,  the 
decree  or  fiat  of  God  (p^/^ia)  referring,  prob- 
ably, to  the  language,  'And  God  said.'  'In 
order  that'  (fis  t6,  implying  purpose,  not 
result).*  This  arrangement  was  made,  and 
we  made  to  discern  rationally  by  faith  the 
truth  that  the  world  has  been  framed  by  the 
word  of  God,  in  order  that  [to  our  apprehen- 
sion] what  is  seen  should  not  have  sprung 
from  what  appears,  in  order  that  we  might 
clearly  see  that  the  objects  and  phenomena 
which  we  behold  have  a  higher  than  merely 
sensible  origin.  While  man  in  his  original 
constitution  was  made  to  see  God  in  nature, 
by  the  fall  he  has  lost  that  power,  at  least, 
that  disposition.  He  now  naturally  banishes 
or  ignores  God  in  creation;  he  rests  in  ma- 
terial causes;  he  refers  back  the  tilings  which 
are  seen  to  sensible  causes  and  phenomena. 
Sin  has  cut  the  bond  which,  to  the  eye  of 
man,  unites  the  universe  with  the  Creator. 
Faith  restores  that  bond.  It  reunites  the  sev- 
ered links  of  the  great  chain  ;  it  enables  man 
to  rise  above  the  sphere  of  sensible  causes,  and 
once  more  see  in  the  universe,  with  all  its 
phenomena,  a  product  of  spiritual  power. 
This  is  the  simple  teaching  of  the  passage.  It 
gives  to  faith  its  place  as  the  grand  power  that 
binds  the  creation  to  the  Creator.  It  is  an 
exemplification,  then,  of  that  second  element 


1  The  fis  TO  here,  and  the  toO  m^  of  verse  5,  may,  indeed,  denote  simple  result. 


Ch.  XI.] 


HEBREWS. 


147 


4  By  faith  Abe!  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent 
sacrilice  than  Cain,  by  which  he  obtaiiud  witness  that 
he  was  righteous,  Uod  testifying  of  his  gifts:  and  by  it 
he  being  dead  yet  speaketh. 


4  things  which  do  appear.  By  faith  .\bel  offered  unto 
God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain,  through 
which  he  Had  witness  borne  to  him  that  he  was 
righteous.  'God  bearing  witness -in  respect  of  his 
gilts:  aud  through  it  he  being  dead  yet  speaketh. 


1  Tbe  Greek  text  in  Ibis  clause  is  soiuewhiii,  uacenalii 'i  Or,  over  kU  gifts. 


of  faith;  namelj-,  that  it  is  a  'conviction  of 
things  wliich  are  not  seen.'  The  creation 
wrought  by  the  word  of  God,  by  a  spiritual 
agency,  is  an  unseen,  spiritual  fact,  wliich  ex- 
perience has  shown  can  only  be  apprehended 
by  faith.  The  wisdom  of  Greek  philosophy 
never  attained  to  it,  hardly  dreamed  of  it. 

.As  to  the  construction.  Many  have  taken 
the  phrase  firj  «  ^<ii.voiJ.iva>v  as  equivalent  to  «  rwf 
lii|  <^a.ivoii.iv<av,  from  the  things  which  do  not  ap- 
pear, and  regarded  this  as  equivalent  to  noth- 
ing, thus  making  the  sentence  signify  "that 
that  which  is  seen  may  [in  their  estimation] 
have  sprung  from  nothing."  But  this  would 
be  totally  to  mistake  the  purpose  of  the  writer. 
He  has  nt>  wish  or  design  to  exalt  notking.  It 
is  not  nothing,  but  God,  from  whom  he  de- 
clares all  things  to  have  sprung.  This  con- 
struction of  'not'  ((iij)  is,  indeed,  barely 
possible;  but  even  then  we  are  under  no 
necessity  of  supposing  that  the  writer  has 
made  use  of  so  awkward  a  periphrasis  to 
express  'nothing';  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
much  more  natural  to  understand  '  the  things 
which  do  not  appear'  as  spiritual  powers  and 
agencies. 

But  a  far  more  natural  construction  of  the 
'not'  (i^^),  and  that  now  generally  adopted, 
is  with  'sprung'  (yeyofecat),  "in  order  that  not 
from  things  which  appear  may  have  sprung 
that  which  is  seen."  The  inquiry,  then,  arises, 
"What  is  the  antithesis  to  the  'things  which 
appear,'  and  from  which  faith  does  recognize 
them  to  have  sprung?"  Moll  declares  it  to 
be  the  teons  before  mentioned — si)iritual  laws 
and  potencies;  but,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with 
nothingto justify  his  intepretation,  eitherinthe 
thought  or  the  language.  Delitzsch  contrasts 
with  ^'  things  which  appear^''  (<i)aivoii.ivMv)  "in- 
telligible things"  (voT\ri),  invisible  archetypes 
or  patterns,  after  which,  as  existing  in  the 
divine  mind,  sensible  and  material  things  were 
constructed.  This  Platonic  turn  of  the  thought 
nothing  in  the  pas,sage  warrants.  It  would 
seem  that  the  antithesis  to  the  "things  which 
appear"  lies  on  the  very  face  of  the  passage, 
and   in   the   natural   drift  and  exigencies  of 


thought.  The  writer  is  illustrating  his  defini- 
tion of  faith  as  a  conviction  of  unseen  things. 
What  are  these  things?  Simply'  God,  with  that 
system  of  truth  of  which  he  is  the  centre.  By 
faith,  then,  we  recognize  that  the  universe  has 
been  framed  by  tlie  v;ord  of  God,  in  order  that 
that  which  is  seen,  the  phenomenal  world  on 
which  we  look,  may  be  seen  to  have  sprung, 
not  from  things  which  appear,  but  from  what? 
— clearly  from  the  word  and  power  of  God. 
Faith  raises  us  from  phenomenal  to  spiritual 
causes ;  from  second  and  inelRcient  causes  to 
the  Supreme,  the  one  great  First  Cause.  Noth- 
ing can  be  simpler ;  and  the  passage  thus  inter- 
preted is  luminous  and  eloquent  with  a  beau- 
tiful and  fundamental  truth. 

4.  By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a 
more  excellent  (^nkiiova,  more,  target — that 
is,  qualitatively,  in  all  the  true  attributes  of  a 
sacrifice;  hence,  better)  sacrifice  than  Cain. 
In  what  respect  better?  Abel  was  a  shep- 
herd ;  Cain  a  husbandman  ;  Abel  brought  of 
the  first  fruits  of  his  flock;  Cain  of  the  first 
fruits  of  his  field.  Both  were  probabl}'  osten- 
sibly thank  offerings;  neither  of  them  osten- 
sibly propitiatory.  Yet  Abel  brought  a  bloody 
sacrifice,  such  as  might  befit  a  guilty  person 
needing  expiation  before  God.  As  each,  how- 
ever, brought  the  offering  which  belonged 
naturally  to  his  vocation,  it  might  seem  that 
the  difference  was  accidental,  and  that  Abel 
brought  his  offering  with  as  little  conscious- 
ness of  guilt  and  of  a  need  of  atonement  as 
Cain.  Our  author,  however,  expressly  de- 
clares that  Abel  brought  his  better  offering 
by  faith ;  thus,  while  he  brought  an  intrinsi- 
cally more  appropriate  sacrifice  for  a  guilty 
being — a  sacrifice  of  blood — the  choice  was  not 
accidental,  but  was  dictated  by  faith.  In 
other  words,  there  was  already  a  recognition 
of  man's  need  of  an  atonement,  and  a  dim 
premonition  and  greeting  in  this  very  dawn 
of  time,  of  the  great  oblation  of  Calvary. 
His  faith  embraced  both  elements;  it  em- 
braced a  conviction  of  unseen  realities,  and 
confidence  in  anticipated  good.  Hy  (through) 
which  he  obtained  witness  that  he  was 


148 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


5  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not 
see  death;  aua  was  not  found,  because  (jod  had  trans- 
lated hiiu  :  for  l)ef(jre  his  translation  he  had  this  testi- 
mony, that  he  pleased  Liod. 


5  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not 
see  death  ;  and  he  was  not  found^  because  God  trans- 
lated him:  for  '  he  hath  had  witness  borne  to  him 
that  before  his  translation  he  had  been  well-pleasing 


1  Or,  before  his  translation  A«  hath  had  witness  borne  to  him. 


{he  was  attested  to  be)  righteous.  '  Through 
■which'  {fii)  may  refer  either  to  'faith'  or  'sac- 
rifice.' Grammatically,  from  its  position,  it 
would  refer  rather  to  the  latter,  and  this 
makes  a  perfectly  good  sense,  as  in  fact  it  was 
his  sacritice  which,  at  least  for  history,  pro- 
duced the  attestation.  Still,  as  'faith'  is  the 
prevalent  idea,  it  is  better,  perhaps,  to  take  it 
as  referring  to  faith,  and  the  'through  which 
lie  was  attested'  as  corresponding  to  the  '  were 
attested  in  this'  of  ver.  2.  The  testimony  re- 
ferred to  is  here  not  that  of  Christ  (see  above 
Matt.  23  :  35),  but  the  testimony  of  God  at 
the  time,  as  borne  both  in  his  reception  of  the 
offering,  and  his  subsequent  avenging  of  the 
murder  of  the  offerer.  God  testifying  of  his 
gifts.  This  refers  to  the  declaration  (Gen.  4:4) 
that '  God  had  respect  to,'  looked  with  approval 
upon,  Abel  and  his  offering,  and  undoubtedly 
signalized  his  acceptance  by  an  outward  sign, 
probably  by  consuming  the  victim  with  light- 
ning. Some  such  manifest  expression  must  be 
assumed,  in  order  to  account  for  the  outburst 
of  envy  and  wrath  in  Cain. 

And  by  it  (that  is,  clearly,  by  fttith)  he  be- 
ing dead — after  dying,  though  dead — yet 
(still)  speaketh.  It  seems  extraordinary  that 
the  Greek  interpreters,  Chrysostom,  Theodo- 
ret,  with  many  more  recent,  should  have  taken 
the  stiU  here  temporally,  of  the  time  of  the 
author,  and  the  verb  'speaketh'  (AaA^r),  also 
of  the  then  present  time;  making  the  passage 
declare  that  through  faith  Abel  still  speaks  to 
all  after  ages,  exhorting  them  to  faith  (Chrys- 
ostom), or,  is  spoken  of  (equivalent  to  AaAeirat, 
is  celebrated,  Theodoret).  This,  indeed,  is  a 
proper  thing  to  say  of  Abel,  as  of  any  other 
ancient  worthy,  and  no  more  of  him  than  of 
any  other,  unless,  perhaps,  the  author  may 
choose  to  regard  that  voice  with  which  after 
death  Abel  cries  to  God  as  still  sounding  on 
through  the  ages.  But  that  voice  was  not  an 
exhortation  to  faith,  nor  is  it  a  voice  of  eulogy 
on  the  martyr.  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt,  I  think,  that  the  passage  refers  to  the 
crying  of  Abel's  blood  in  the  ears  of  God,  im- 
mediately after  his  murder.  The  word  still 
(cTt)  is  logical,  not  temporal,  and  by-familiar 


Greek  u.sage  refers  back  to  the  participle;  the 
verb  'speaketh'  is  the  historical  present,  the 
two  forming  a  sharp  contrast  to  the  preceding 
participle,  'upon  dying,  he  still  speaks'— he 
speaks  even  after  he  dies.  'The  voice  of  thy 
brother's  blood  crieth  unto  me  from  the 
ground.'  It  was  Abel's  faith  that  caused  God 
to  hear,  as  it  were,  the  cry  of  his  blood  as  it 
sunk  into  the  ground  and  to  bring  to  account 
him  who  shed  it.  "Precious  in  the  sight  of 
the  Lord  is  the  death  of  his  saints."  Faith 
gives  a  voice  to  their  wrongs  in  the  ear  of 
God. 

5.  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated — here 
elliptically  ;  by  faith  Enoch  was  enabled  so  to 
live  that  he  was  translated.  'Translated'  — 
that  is,  removed,  from  this  world  to  God. 
"  Withdrew  to  the  divinity"  (Josephus,  "An- 
tiquities 1  :  3,  4).  We  have  here  the  inspired 
comment  on  the  brief  statement.  Gen.  5  :  21. 
That  he  should  {might)  not  see  death. 
The  Greek  naturally  means,  in  order  that  he 
might  not  see,  rather  than,  'so  as  not  to  see.' 
Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  this.  God  did 
not  merely  take  Enoch,  so  that  he  did  not,  but 
with  the  purpose  that  he  should  not,  'see 
death.'  He  designed  to  snatch  him  away  from 
the  clutches  of  death,  and  thus  vindicate  his 
extraordinary  piety,  and  perhaps  give  to  that 
elder  time  a  token  of  a  future  existence. 
And  he  Avas  not  found,  because  God 
translated  (removed)  him.  The  phrase  is  the 
Septuagint  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  "and  was 
not  because  God  took  him."  For  before  his 
translation  he  (has)  had  witness  borne  to 
him  that  he{hasbeenattestedtohnve)^\ea^eA. 
God.  The  phrase  'pleased  God'  (fvope<n(lv  tw 
flew)  is  again  the  Septuagint  for  the  Hebrew 
"walked  with  God,"  and  expresses  its  substan- 
tial meaning,  denoting  that  intimacy,  that 
walking  with  God,  which  is  the  result  and 
reward,  as  well  as  the  process,  of  a  life  of 
piety.  The  passage  admits  one  or  two  differ- 
ent constructions.  If  we  take  the  'before  his 
removal'  with  'has  been  attested' — that  is, 
'he  has  been  attested  before  his  removal' — 
then  probably  the  preposition  'before'  is  to  be 
taken  locally,  and  the  words  '  his  removal ' 


Ch.  XI.] 


HEBREWS. 


149 


6  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him: 
for  he  that  conietU  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
i/ial  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him. 

7  By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  of  God  of  things  not 
seen  as  yet,  movea  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the 
saving  of  his  house  ;  by  the  which  he  condemned  the 
world,  and  became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith. 


6  unto  God:  and  without  faith  it  is  imiws-sible  to  be 
well-pleasing  unto  him:  fur  he  that  cometh  to  (iod 
must  believe  that  he  is,  and  l/iat  be  is  a  rewarder  of 

7  them  that  seek  after  him.  By  faith  Noah,  being 
warned  u/  God  concerning  things  not  seen  a.s  yet, 
moved  with  godly  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving 
of  his  house;  through  which  lie  condeiune.i  the 
world,  and  became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is 


for  the  passage  which  records  his  removal. 
Thus  we  have:  "  For  before  the  record  of  his 
removal  he  has  had  the  testimony  borne  to 
him  that  he  pleased  God,"  as  in  fact  the  de- 
claration that  he  pleased  God  immediately 
precedes  the  statement  that  he  was  not  found 
because  God  took  him.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  take  the  clause  'before  his  removal'  with 
the  verb  'to  have  pleased,'  then  the  preposi- 
tion is  to  be  taken  temporally^  and  we  have, 
"for  he  stands  attested  previously  to  his  re- 
moval to  have  pleased  God."  The  perfect, 
'he  has  been  attested'  (/xe/naprupijTai),  probably 
denotes  that  the  fact  of  the  attestjition  stands 
before  our  eyes. 

6.  The  author  proceeds  with  his  usual  de- 
liberation. He  has  not  yet  given  his  proof, 
only  collected  the  materials  for  it.  We  have 
found  that  Enoch  enjoyed  the  extraordinary 
prerogative  of  escaping  death.  But  this  was 
because  '  he  pleased  God ; '  and  the  author  now 
draws  his  inference.  But  without  faith  it 
is  impossible  to  please  him  :  for  he  that 
cometh  to  God — not  (as  some),  "he  v/ho 
goes  to  God  as  did  Enoch,"  but,  as  in  former 
chapters,  "he  who  approaches  God  in  sacri- 
fice and  worship"  (4:i6;7:2+;  10:22)  must  bc- 
lieve  that  he  is — must  have  that  element  of 
faith  which  is  a  conviction  of  unseen  realities, 
of  spiritual  trutli.  And  that  he  is  {proves)  a 
rewarder  of  them  that  dilig'ently  (earn- 
estly) seek  him — must  have  that  other  ele- 
ment of  faith  which  consists  in  confidence  in 
future  blessings,  as  the  result  and  reward  of 
present  fidelity.  Thus  faith  always  looks  into 
the  unseen  and  forward  to  the  future.  We 
cannot  truly  believe  that  God  is,  without  also 
believing  that  he  e.xists  as  a  Being  who  cares 
for  and  will  reward  virtue.  The  must  (5«i),  it 
is  necessary,  expresses,  however,  ratlier  a  logi- 
cal than  a  moral  necessity.  It  behooves,  in- 
deed, every  one  to  believe  that  God  is;  but 
here  the  author  is  establishing  a  point,  and 
the  'must'  marks  simply  the  necessary  con- 
nection between  his  premise  and  his  conclu- 
Bion. 

7.  We  pass  from  Enoch  to  the  hero  of  the 


flood.     By  faith  Noah,  being  warned    of 

God — concerning  things  not  seen  as  yet ;  that 
is,  of  God's  purpose  to  destroy  tlie  world  by  a 
deluge.  Of  that  deluge  there  were  not  as  yet 
the  slightest  sensible  indications.  The  decla- 
ration of  God,  communicated  wc  know  not 
ho.vv,  was  Noah's  only  evidence  in  the  case, 
and  his  act  therefore  was  an  act  of  pure  faith 
in  a  Being  unseen,  and  an  event  wholly  be- 
yond the  sphere  of  sense.  Noah's  faith,  too, 
was  doubtless  sorely  tried.  He  built  the  ark 
slowly  before  an  unbelieving  and  mocking 
world.  Often  must  he  have  been  sorely 
tempted  to  abandon  the  work  which  they 
stigmatized  as  foolish  and  fanatical,  and  join 
them  in  that  careless  revelling,  that  utter  dis- 
regard of  everything  beyond  the  present 
(Matt,  u :  37-40),  which  characterized  them — "they 
knew  not  till  the  flood  came  and  destro^-ed 
them  all" — but  he  persevered  in  faith.  Moved 
with  fear  (i)4  reverent  fear  or  foresight)^ 
prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  (safety)  of 
his  house.  '  Moved  with  fear'  is  not  a  very 
happy  rendering  of  the  verb(ci'Aa|3j)eeis).  Either 
'in  reverent  fear '  or  '  in  reverent  foresight.'  I 
prefer  the  former:  'giving  reverent  heed  to  tlie 
divine  declarations.'  By  (through)  which 
he  condemned  the  world.  'Through 
which'  might  (as  Chr^'sostom  and  many) 
agree  with  'ark';  he  condemned  the  world 
through  the  ark  which  he  built;  or,  with  sal-* 
vation,  'safety';  he  condemned  the  world 
through  the  salvation  which  lie  obtained  by 
building  the  ark.  Neither  of  these  meanings 
is  entirely  inapposite.  Yet  it  is  better,  doubt- 
less, in  conformity  with  the  controlling  idea 
of  the  chapter,  to  refer  it  to  faith.  By  faith 
he  condemned  the  world.  His  long,  patient, 
believing,  waiting  upon  God,  while  the  ark 
was  prepr.ring  and  the  world  was  scoffing, 
itself  pronounced  condemnation  on  an  unbe- 
lieving and  scoffing  world,  and  he,  on  the 
other  hand,  became  heir  (inheritoi — that  is, 
possessor)  of  the  righteousness  which  i.^ 
by  (according  to)  faith.  The  exjyression  has 
reference,  probably,  to  the  fact  that  No-h  is 
the  first  who  in  the  Old  Testaniei<t  is  expressly 


150 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XL 


8  By  fiiith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called  lo  go  out 
into  a  jilace  which  be  should  after  receive  for  an  inherit- 
ance, obeyed  ;  and  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither 
lie  weni. 

y  By  faith  he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  m 
a  strange  country,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise: 


8  according  to  faith.  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was 
called,  obeyed  to  go  out  unto  a  place  which  he  was 
to  receive  for  an  inheritance;  and  he  went  out,  not 

9  knowing  whither  be  went.  By  faith  he  became  a 
sojourner  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  land  not  his 
own, 'dwelling  in  teuts,  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the 


1  Or,  Itaving  taken  up  his  abode  in  tents. 


called  'righteous.'  (Geii.  G  :  9;  conipare.Ezek. 
14  :  14,  20.)  Some  have  supposed,  but  with  no 
sufficient  reason,  that  Noah  is  called  'heir'  or 
'inheritor'  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  as 
entering  into  and,  as  it  were,  inheriting  that 
righteousness  which  had  already'  belonged  to 
Abel  and  Enoch.  It  has  probably  a  single 
and  absolute  reference  to  Noah.  Noah  was 
a  righteous  man  and  a  '  preacher  of  righteous- 
ness' ;  but  as  in  the  author's  conception  (or  in 
the  fact  of  the  case)  there  could  be  no  right- 
eousness that  did  not  rest  upon  faith  in  invisi- 
ble and  spiritual  realities,  his  righteousness  is 
called,  in  conformity  with  the  main  tenor  of 
tiie  chapter,  '  the  righteousness  according  to 
faith.'  There  could  be  no  other,  for  none 
could  be  righteous  who  did  not  please  God, 
and  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
him.  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  supposing 
any  poletnical  reference  to  Paul's  doctrine  of 
the  'righteousness  of  faith.'  The  standing 
point  of  the  two  writers  is  entirely  diiferent. 
Paul  is  discussing  the  principle  of  justification 
in  view  of  the  claims  of  the  moral  law,  and 
the  atonement  of  a  manifested  and  crucified 
Saviour.  Our  author  considers  that  principle 
as  operating  long  ages  before  there  was  any 
distinct  exhibition  of  the  atonement.  Paul's 
mode  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  faith  in  rela- 
tion to  Abraham  (Rom.  4)  will  be  found  on  ex- 
amination to  coincide  precisely  with  that  of 
our  author.  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
was  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness.  Just 
80  according  to  this  chapter,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Moses,  etc.  Every  act  of  faith  in  the  saints 
of  the  Old  Testament  involved  the  generic 
character  of  that  faith  which  in  the  gospel 
concentrates  itself  upon  the  person  and  fin- 
ished work  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  trusted 
God,  they  took  him  at  his  word ;  they  felt  a 
sense  of  unworthiness  and  a  need  of  forgive- 
ness, and  discerning  dimly,  very  dimly,  the 
rudiments  of  a  gracious  economy,  cordially 
and  siivingly  embraced  it. 

(b)  Exainpleof  Abraham  and  Sarah.  (8-12.) 
8.  By    faith    Abraham,  when    he   was 


called — being  called— that  is,  being  summoned 
(Geu.  12: 1-4) ;  not  "he  who  was  called  Abra- 
ham," as  some,  led  by  the  present  participle, 
have  supposed.  The  present  participle  is  finely 
used  to  denote  that,  not  ''upon  being  called' 
(icAr)0eis),  but  ''while  being  called'  (itoAoufteyot) 
he  obeyed.  His  obedience  responded  instantly 
and  half  anticipatingly  to  tiie  call.  Obeyed 
— hearkened  obediently  to  the  call  (vn-aKouw,  the 
word  being  selected  as  corresponding  to  Ko-Xilv). 
Tiie  call  of  Abraham  was  to  abandon  his 
country  and  go  forth  into  a  region  which  God 
should  show  him;  he  hastened  to  go  out  into 
a  place  which  he  should  after  receive  for 
an  inheritance  —  this  place  was  Canaan. 
And  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither 
he  Cometh — historical  present  for  ivent.  Abra- 
ham's trust  was  absolute  and  extrtiordinary. 
It  was  not  until  he  reached  Canaan  that  he 
knew  even  his  jilace  of  destination.  But  his 
faith  embraced  the  elements  of  a  conviction 
of  the  unseen,  and  confidence  in  future  good. 
Like  a  child,  he  placed  his  hand  in  the  hand 
of  this  unseen  Father,  to  be  led  whither  he 
himself  knew  not. 

9.  By  faith  he  sojourned  in  (irapuKijcrcK,  in 
classic  Greek,  dwelt  along  side;  in  Hellenistic 
Greek,  dwelt  as  stranger  or  sojourner);  'so- 
journed into'  («is),  a  pregnant  construction 
for  ''went  into  and  sojourned  there,'  as  is  com- 
mon in  Greek.  The  land  of  promise— the 
land  which  God  promised  to  give  to  his  pos- 
terity. Acts  7  :  5.  As  in  a  strange  (an  alien) 
country — as,  though  promised  to  his  posterity, 
yet  belonging  to  another  people,  and  himself 
as  having  in  it  no  right  of  possession.  "God 
did  not  give  to  him  of  the  land  so  much  as  to 
put  bis  foot  on."  In  what,  then,  did  Abra- 
ham's faith  consist?  Was  it  in  his  sojourning 
in  a  land  which  did  not  belong  to  him,  on  the 
strength  of  the  promise  that  his  posterity 
should  receive  it?  Or  was  it  in  his  dwelling 
in  a  land  which  bis  posterity  were  to  receive, 
and  which  thus  was  by  anticipation  his,  as  if 
it  belonged  to  strangers,  and  thus  declaring 
himself  a   pilgrim  on  the  earth?    Doubtless 


Ch.  XL] 


HEBREWS. 


151 


10  For  lie  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,  |  10  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise:  for  he  looked 
wliose  builder  aud  maker  U  God.  for  tlie    city    wliicli    liaih   the    foundations,   whose 

11  Through  faith  also  Sarah  herself  received  strength     11  '  builder  and  maker  is  God.      By  laith  even  Sarah 
to  conceive  seed  and  was  delivered  of  a  child  when  she  |       herself  received  power  to  conceive  seed  when  she 


I  Or,  archiUct. 


his  faith  embraced  both  elements.  He  so- 
journed, under  the  promise  of  God,  in  a  land 
of  strangers,  on  the  strength  of  God's  promise 
that  it  should  belong  to  his  posterity.  Again, 
although  it  was  thus  in  some  sort  his  own,  he 
60j«iurned  in  it  as  belonging  to  strangers,  and 
thus,  neither  returning  to  hi?  old  home,  nor 
having  any  present  hcAiie,  he  lived  in  a  state 
of  voluntary  exile,  seeking  a  country  and  a 
city  to  come.  It  is  then  his  sojourning  in  this 
land,  as  an  alien  land,  that  the  writer  has  now 
specially  in  view,  as  in  so  doing  he  renounced 
all  earthly  inheritance,  and  declared  his  trust 
in  a  higher  spiritual  and  future  good.  B^h 
the  elements  of  faith  entered  largely  into  his 
— a  conviction  of  unseen  realities,  confidence 
in  future  good. 

Dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  (not  <rvV, 
together  with,  implying  accompaniment,  but 
fieri,  in  common  with,  implying  participation). 
Isaac,  to  be  sure,  dwelt  in  tents  in  company 
with  Abraham,  but  Jacob  did  not.  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him  of  the 
same  promise,  Abraham,  though  rich  in 
herds  and  flocks  and  servants,  was  prohibited 
from  building  or  occupying  any  town,  or  even 
permanent  dwelling  house.  His  mode  of  life, 
as  well  as  that  of  his  sons,  was  primitive  and 
nomadic;  he  lived  in  tents,  which  enabled 
him  easily  to  transport  himself  from  one 
place  to  anotlier.  Something  of  this  may  be 
due  to  the  migratory  habits  of  an  Oriental 
nomad  chief,  but  much  more,  we  may  be  sure, 
to  that  divine  dispensation  which  made  the 
life  of  Abraham,  in  its  perpetual  demand  for 
and  exercise  of  faith,  a  pre-eminent  pattern 
for  the  believers  who  were  to  be  his  spiritual 
offspring. 

10.  For  he  looked  for  a  (was  awaiting  the) 
city  which  hath  foundations  (or,  the  foun- 
dations). Not  (with  Grotius  and  some)  the 
earthly  Jerusalem — a  reference  so  inapposite 
that  it  seems  inexplicable  how  any  should 
have  so  understood  it — but  the  Jerusalem 
which  is  above  (Oai.  i:26),  "the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem, the  city  of  the  living  God"  (n.ti), 
which  hath  foundations  (see  Rev.  21  :  14,  for 
the  foundations  of  the  Jerusalem  descended 


from  God  out  of  heaven),  and  which  is  thus 
stable  and  abiding,  as  against  the  changing 
and  temporary  character  of  tent  life.  That 
Abraham  was  with  a  distinct  consciousness 
looking  for  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  as  his 
future  home,  we  need  not  a.ssert  nor  suppose. 
The  latent  elements  of  the  Old  Testament 
faith  come  first  to  clear  consciousness  in  the 
New,  and  in  the  light  of  its  clearer  revelations 
the  New  Testament  writers  can  both  iiiterpret 
the  dark  hints  of  the  Old  and  the  real  nature 
and  objects  of  the  faith  of  the  early  saints.  But 
that  such  was  the  real  essence  of  that  faith  we 
may  infer  from  those  traditions  of  the  S^-na- 
gogue  and  articles  of  Jewish  belief  which 
gradually  explicated  themselves  out  of  the 
Old  Testament  records,  and  prepared  the  way 
for  the  fuller  revelations  of  the  gospel.  Mar- 
tha's declaration  to  our  Lord  that  her  brother 
should  rise  again  at  the  resurrection  at  the  last 
day  seetns  but  the  more  articulate  utterance  of 
the  faith  of  those  ancient  worthies  (see  ver.  3.5 
and  compare  2  Mace.  7)  who  laid  down  their 
lives  in  hope  of  'a  better  resurrection,'  thus 
assuring  us  that  even  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection was  not  without  its  Old  Testament 
foreshadowings.  So  the  heavenly,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  earthly  Jerusalem,  is  a  Jew- 
ish doctrine  before  the  coming  of  Christ  and 
its  descent  to  earth  after  the  Second  Coming, 
as  in  Revelation,  is  in  harmony  with  Jewish 
belief  respecting  what  should  -happen  in  the 
times  of  the  Messiah. 

Whose  bnilder  and  maker  (whose  archi- 
tect and  builder)  is  God — (as  planner  of  this 
city  God  is  its  rexviTi)<!;  as  its  actual  founder 
and  builder,  its  6»)|u.ioupyds). 

11.  Throu§:h  laith  also  Sarah  herself. 
This  emphasis  on  Sarah  either  as  contrasted 
with  her  husband,  who,  as  tiie  head  of  the 
woman  and  as  being  pre-eminent  in  faith, 
would  naturally  in  this  relation  be  alone  no- 
ticed ;  or,  as  having  been  previously  barren  ; 
or  (with  Liinemann,  Delitzsch,  Moll,  etc.) 
because  she  had  at  the  first  been  unbelieving 
as  to  God's  promise  («en.  18:12. 15),  whence  her 
transition  to  a  state  of  faith  was  the  more  re- 
markable.    Received  strength  to  conceive 


152 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


was  past  age,  because  she  judged  him  faithful  who  had 
promised. 

12  Therefore  sprang  there  even  of  one,  and  him  as 
good  as  dead,  so  inuny  as  the  stars  of  the  sky  in  multi- 
tude, and  as  the  sand  which  is  by  the  sea  shore  innu- 
merable. 

13  These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the 
promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  ott,  and  were  per- 
suaded of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed 
that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth. 

14  For  they  that  say  such  things  declare  plainly  that 
they  seek  a  country. 


was  past  age,  since  she  counted  him  faithful  who 

12  had  promised :  wherefore  also  there  sprang  of  one, 
and  him  as  good  as  dead,  so  vumy  as  the  stars  of 
heaven  in  multitude,  and  as  the  sand,  which  is  by 
the  sea  shore,  innumerable. 

13  These  all  died  '  in  faith,  not  having  received  the 
promises,  but  having  seen  them  and  greeted  them 
from   afar,  and    having  confessed   that    they   were 

14  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that 
say  such  things  make  it  manifest  that  they  are  seek- 


1  Gp.  according  to. 


seed  (/or  the  founding  of  an  offspnng),  or 
with  many  (as  Clirysostoin,  Theophylact,  etc.), 
'for  the  reception  and  conceiving  of  seed.' 
When  she  was  past  age  (and  that  contrary 
to  the  period  of  her  life),  as  she  was  now 
past  the  age  at  which  offspring  might  have 
been  expected,  even  had  she  previously  had 
children.  Because  (since)  she  counted 
him  faithful  who  had  promised.  Thus 
Sarah,  like  Abraham,  her  lord,  .staggered  not 
at  the  promise  through  unbelief,  believing 
that  what  God  had  promised  he  was  able  to 
accomplish.  "Against  hope" — that  is,  against 
all  rational  ground  of  probability  she  believed 
in  hope. 

12.  Therefore  sprang  there,  etc. —  Where- 
fore also  there  were  begotten  from  one  (Abra- 
ham), and  that,  too,  when  become  as  dead 
{vev€Kpo>oiJ.€vov,  deadened,  having  lost  his  repro- 
ductive power.  The  same  epithet  is  applied  to 
Abraham's  body  (Roin.  4:  i9),  as  also  to  the  like 
condition  of  Stirah) ;  [a  seed] ;  as  the  stars  of 
the  sky  in  m.ultitude,  as  the  sand  which  is  along 
the  border  of  the  sea,  the  innumerable.  Such 
are  the  terms  of  the  promise  to  Abraham. 

(Gen.  13:16;  15:5;  22:  17,  etc.)       And  the  promisC  haS 

been,  and  will  be  fulfilled,  alike  in  Abrahams 
natural  and  his  spiritual  seed.  . 

(c)  Retrospective  glance  at  the  above-cited 
■believers.     (13-16.) 

13.  These  all  .(yl6?YtAam 'a«rf  the  patri- 
archs, not  the  atitediluvian  worthies)  died  in 
faith — not,  '  by  faith,'  as  before,  because  faith 
was  not  the  cause  of  their  death — not  having 
received  the  promises  (that  is,  the  fulfill- 
ment of  them),  but  seeing  and  greeting 
them  (aanaaafifvoi,  not,  'embracing,'  but,  'sa- 
luting,' as  one  salutes  the  harbor  and  shore 
which  he  is  approaching).  That  is,  their  death 
of  faith  corresponded  to  their  life  of  faith. 
The  declaration  is  not  that  they  died  in  faith, 
becaus&  they  had  not  received  the  promises, 
but  had  seen  them,  etc.  (this  would  require  oi 


(co/i«<To/i€rot  instead  of  Mi) ;  but  their  death  was  a 
death  in  accordance  with  faith,  as  being  a 
death  of  those  who  had  not  received  the  prom- 
ise, but  who  saw  and  greeted  them ;  that  is, 
the  author  does  not  tell  us  that  these  men 
died  in  faith,  not  in  sight,  and  then  assign  as 
the  reason  that  they  had  not  received,  etc. 
But  he  tells  us  that  their  deatli  had  the  char- 
acter of  faith  in  that  without  receiving  tlie 
fulfilled  promises,  they  yet  saw  and  greeted 
them  from  afar.  And  confessed  that  they 
were  strangers  and  pilgrims  [sojourners) 
on  the  earth.  This  was  part  of  their  dying 
in  faith,  that  though  they  had  not  received 
the  promises,  they  yet  saw  and  greeted  them; 
and  were  thus  willing,  in  view  of  the  higher 
and  greater  blessings  which  these  promises 
held  out,  to  regard  themselves  as  strangers  and 
pilgrims  on  the  earth.  The  language  refers  to 
that  of  Abraham.  (Geo.  23:4.)  They  thus  showed 
that  they  had  that  faith  which  rises  above  the 
.sensible,  and  passes  beyond  the  present,  and 
takes  hold  of  unseen  and  enduring  good. 

14.  For  they  that  say  such  things  de- 
Clare  plainly  {show)  that  they  seek  {are 
seeking)  a  (equivalent  to  their)  country  (a 
fatherland).  The  man  who  styles  himself  a 
sojourner  and  an  exile,  clearly  implies  that  he 
has  in  view  somewhere  a  country'  which  shall 
be  to  him  his  country,  a  fatherland,  of  which 
he  can  use  that  endearing  language,  '  my 
country.'  The  English  language  is  unfortu- 
nate in  having  no  single  word  which  (without 
the  prefix  of  the  possessive  pronoun)  expresses 
the  difference  between  the  Greek  region,  ter- 
ritory (x<ipa),  and  native  land,  fatherland 
{narpU),  country  as  the  home  of  one's  ances- 
tors and  the  place  of  his  citizenship.  This  is 
the  force  of  the  term  here.  The  Germans 
render  it  adequately  and  beautifully  by  "Fath- 
erland"; we  have  to  leave  its  most  essential 
idea  unexpressed  and  dependent  on  explana- 
tion.    It  is  not  natural  for  man  to  be  a  mere 


Ch.  XI.] 


HEBREWS. 


153 


15  And  truly  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country 
from  whence  they  came  out,  they  might  have  had  op- 
porturiily  to  have  returned. 

16  But' now  tliey  desire  a  better  country,  that  is,  a 
heavenly:  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called 
their  God :  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city. 


15  ing  after  a  country  of  their  own.  And  if  indeed 
they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from  which 
they  went  out.  they  would  have  had  opponuniiy  to 

16  return.  But  now  they  desire  a  better  cuuntry,  ilial 
is,  a  heavenly:  wherelore  (iod  is  not  ashauie^l  of 
them,  to  be  called  their  God:  for  he  hath  prepared 
for  them  a  city. 


cosmopolite,  a  rover.  As  his  heart  demands 
a  home,  so  his  inextinguishable  sentiments 
demand  a  'country.'  The  reasoning  of  the 
author  is  just :  the  very  fact  of  these  patriarchs 
styling  themselves  pilgrims  and  sojourners 
pointed  to  a  demand  of  their  heart  and  their 
faith  for  a  land  which  they  could  call  their 
country. 

15.  And  truly,  if,  etc.  —  And  if,  indeed 
(when  they  were  thus  styling  themselves),  they 
had  had  in  mind  (were  making  mention  ofj 
that  [fatherland]  from  which  they  cam,e  forth. 
If  Abraham,  for  example,  when  (Gen. 23  =  4)  he 
calls  himself  a  sojourner  and  a  pilgrim,  had 
referred  to  his  present  residence  as  compared 
■with  the  land  of  his  birth,  they  might 
(would)  have  had  opportunity  to  return 
— and  return  assuredly  they  would,  argues 
the  author,  if  they  had  had  no  higher  and 
better  hope  in  the  future.  No  man  loves  to 
bean  alien  and  e.xile;  but  they  consented  to 
spend  a  life  of  estrangement  from  country, 
city,  and  home,  and  the  only  ground  and  justi- 
fication of  their  procedure  is  their  faith  that 
laid  hold,  as  the  reward  of  their  earthly  dis- 
franc'iiisement,  on  a  future  and  better  country. 

16.  But  now  (as  it  is,  vvv,  logical,  now,  as 
the  case  stands,  in  fact)  they  desire  {are  seek- 
ing for)  a  better  country,  that  is,  a  hea- 
venly. If  there  were  doubt  about  'the  city 
that  hath  foundations'  (ver.  lo),  whether,  that 
is,  it  refers  to  the  earthly  (as  Ebrard),  or  to  the 
heavenly  .Jerusalem,  this  language  would  seem 
to  settle  it.  If  they  were  seeking  a  heavenly 
country,  tliey  would  surely  .seek  the  heavenly 
city — the  metropolis  of  the  country.  As  to 
the  sentiment,  we  may  well  admit  that  our 
author  has  explicated  more  from  the  language 
of  the  patriarchs  than  was  distinctly  in  their 
consciousness.  They  may  have  acquiesced  in 
their  own  disfranchised  and  alien  condition 
consciously  on  the  ground  of  the  entrar:ce  of 
their  posterity  into  an  inheritance  which  was 
withheld  from  them.  But  the  author  has  not 
drawn  more  from  their  language  iind  conduct 
than,  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament,  was 
implicitly  contained  in  them.     The  whole  in- 


terpretation hangs  together.  If  the  lineal  de- 
scendants of  Abralmm  were  not  the  true  peo- 
ple of  God,  but  only  typified  them  ;  if  tlie  rest 
of  Canaan  was  not  the  true  rest,  but  only  sym- 
bolical of  the  Sabbath  rest  into  which  the  real 
Israel  shall  enter;  if  all  this  was  actually 
wrapped  up  in  these  promises — then  the  faith 
of  the  patriarchs,  which  led  them  to  submit, 
in  view  of  the  promises,  to  a  long  life  of 
earthly  expatriation,  contained  precisely  that 
element,  though  half  latent  to  themselves, 
which  is  here  ascribed  to  it.  The  whole  gist 
of  the  matter  is  involved  in  that  remarkable 
language  of  Christ:  "Your  father  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was 

glad."       (John  8:  36.) 

Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  {of  them) 
to  be  called  their  God.  God  revealed  him- 
self specially  as  the  'God  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob'  (Exod. 3:6;  Acts 3: 13, etc.),  vvhich  indeed 
became  his  familiar  designation.  The  extra- 
ordinary faith  of  these  patriarchs,  their  life- 
long expatriation  in  simple  reliance  on  his 
promise — a  promise  vvhich  in  their  dtiy  never 
seemed  to  have  advanced  a  step  toward  reali- 
zation— earned  for  them  this  eminent  preroga- 
tive. On  the  other  hand,  that  it  was  still  an 
act  of  condescension  in  God;  that,  extraordi- 
nary as  was  their  faith,  it  could  lay  him  under 
no  obligation  so  to  honor  them,  is  here  (as  at 
2  :  11,  where  the  like  term  is  applied  to  the 
Redeemer's  entering  into  brotherly  relations 
with  his  people)  beautifully  implied  in  the 
'not  ashamed'  (ai<rxui'€Tai).  God  has  to  hum- 
ble himself  in  allowing  himself  to  be  so  de- 
signated. 

For  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city. 
This  again  not  the  earthly,  but  the  heavenly 
.Jerusalem,  the  city  of  the  living  God,  which 
is  here  represented  as  prepared  for  the  ptitri- 
archs.  This  is  in  conformity  with  the  typology 
of  the  context.  God  gave  their  natural  seed 
the  earthly  Canaan  ;  he  gave  to  their  .spiritual 
seed,  along  with  them,  the  heavenly  Canaan. 
He  bqilt,  or  had  built  for  their  literal  seed,  the 
earthly  .Jeru.salem  ;  he  built  himself  ('whose 
architect  and  builder  was  God  ')  for  their  spir- 


154 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


17  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered  up  ]  17  By  faith  Abraham,  being  tried,  i  offered  up  Isaac; 
Isaac:  and  he  that  had  received  the  promises  offered  yea,  he  that  liad  j;ladly  received  the  promises  was 
up  his  only  begotten  sun.                                                              18  ottering  up  his  only  begotten  swi;  ev,  n  he.  -to  whom 

18  Of  whom  it  was  said,  That  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  19  it  was  said,  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called  :  ac- 
he called;  I 

1  Gr.  hath  offered  up 2  Or,  of. 


itual  seed,  aiid  of  course  for  them  in  an  emi- 
nent degree,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  The 
city  is,  of  course,  again  placed  in  contrast  with 
the  movable  tent,  which  marked  their  migra- 
tory and  shifting  life.  [The  logical  'for'  (yap) 
states  the  ground  on  which  we  know  that  he 
was  not  ashamed,  etc.  It  states  a  single  point 
as  illustrative  of  that  truth.] 

{d)  Examples  of  the  Jewish  patriarchs. 
(17-22.) 

17.  Another  feature  illustrative  of  faith  in 
the  life  of  the  '  father  of  the  faithful.'  As 
Abraham  was  indebted  to  his  own  faith  and 
Sarah's  for  the  birth  of  Isaac,  so  his  faith  re- 
ceived another  extraordinary  trial  in  regard 
to  him.  Many  have  taken  offense  at  the  in- 
cipient offering  of  Isaac,  but  I  do  not  see  on 
what  just  grounds.  He  who  gives  life  has  a 
right  to  take  it  in  what  manner  he  pleases,  and 
it  lies  as  much  in  his  sovereign  pleasure  to 
commission  a  father  to  plunge  the  sacrificial 
knife  into  the  bosom  of  a  child  as  to  commit 
the  taking  of  life  to  the  agencies  of  nature,  or 
to  the  ministers  of  civil  justice.  The  only 
thing  required  to  justify  the  command  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  implicit  obedience  on  the 
other,  is  the  evidence  that  there  are,  or  may 
be,  sufficient  intrinsic  grounds  for  the  proceed- 
ing. These,  I  think,  can  be  discovered  in  the 
present  case.  Looking  upon  Isaac  as  the  heir 
of  promise,  this  command  to  put  him  to  death 
was  perhaps  the  severest  test  to  which  Abra- 
ham's faith  in  God  could  possibly  be  put. 
Looking  again  at  him  as  a  type  of  Christ,  and 
at  the  probable  place  of  the  transaction  as  the 
scene  of  the  great  substitutionary  sacrifice  of 
the  ages,  we  see  reason  for  God's  selecting  pre- 
cisely this  form  of  trial ;  and  it  no  more  indi- 
cates a  barbarous  age  than  does  his  demand 
for  the  expiatory  blood  of  Christ  as  the  only 
salvation  of  humanity,  or  his  committing  to 
human  tribunals  the  universal  right  to  take 
life  for  adequate  offenses.  So  long  as  sin  is  in 
the  world,  death  will  reign  in  every  form  in 
which  the  righteous  Moral  Ruler  sees  fit  to 
inflict  it. 

By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  {being) 


tried,  (hath)  offered  up  Isaac.  The  perfect 
tense,  instead  of  the  aorist,  represents  the  act 
as  performed  and  on  record  before  the  eyes  of 
man.  The  perfect  brings  it  into  relation  to 
the  present  time.  It  is  here  also  spoken  of  as 
done;  "he  has  offered  him  up,"  because  in 
fact  the  entire  act  was  contemplated  in  his 
faith,  and  the  failure  to  consummate  it  was,  so 
far  as  concerned  Abraham's  faith,  a  mere  acci- 
dent. He  intended  when  he  bound  Isaac  on 
the  altar  to  slay  him  ;  any  mental  reservation 
would  have  vitiated  his  faith.  When  tlie 
writer,  however,  throws  the  act  back  into  the 
past  he  states  the  case  more  exactly.  And  he 
that  had  received  [accepted)  the  promises. 
Abraham  had  not  merely  'received'  (Sexo/^"0 
the  promises;  he  had  'accepted'  them  [6.va- 
SexoMai),  he  had  appropriated  them,  acted  on 
them,  and  thus  seemingly  exposed  his  whole 
plan  and  course  of  life  to  utter  subversion  and 
overthrow  by  this  act  of  obedience.  Offered 
(w«s  offering)  up  (^started  to  offer  up,  com- 
menced offering  up — here  the  author,  in  resum- 
ing, is  more  exact)  his  only  begotten.  The 
epithet  'only  begotten'  sharpens  the  concep- 
tion of  the  faith  involved  in  the  act.  It  does 
so  doubly,  since  to  slay  his  only  begotten 
would  be  doubly  wounding  to  the  parental 
heart,  and  since  after  this  'only  begotten' 
there  was  no  one  left  in  whom  the  great  prom- 
ises to  which  he  had  sacrificed  his  earthly  life 
could  be  realized.  The  latter  is  here  probably 
the  point  mainly  in  view. 

18.  Of  (in  relation  to)  whom  it  was  said. 
The  rendering  "to  whom"  referring  "  whom" 
to  him  'who  had  accepted  the  promises'  to 
Abraham,  is  more  generally  adopted,  but  I 
believe  erroneously.  The  preposition  (n-pd? 
with  the  accusative)  will  bear  equally  well  the 
rendering  'in  relation  to'  (see  1  :  7,  8),  and 
the  '  whom '  then  refers  to  the  '  only  begotten  ' 
Isaac.  Either  construction  is  possible,  but 
with  the  latter  the  quotation  becomes  more 
forcible  and  of  more  pregnant  import.  That 
in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,  (cen. 
21 :  12.)  This  again  is  added  as  heightening  our 
impression  of  his  fai'th,  by  showing  how  com- 


Ch.  XI.] 


HEBREWS. 


155 


19  Accounting  that  God  was  able  to  raise  him.  up, 
even  from  tlie  dead  ;  from  whence  also  he  received  him 
in  a  figure. 


counting  that  God  is  able  to  raise  up,  even  from  the 
dead;  from  whence  he  did  also  in  a  figure  receive 


pletely  his  obedience  was  to  subvert  the  prom- 
ise. 

19.  Accounting  {estimating,  coming  to  a 
rational  conclusion)  that  God  was  able  to 
raise  him  up,  even  from  the  dead — or  bet- 
ter, as  a  general  truth,  That  God  is  able  even 
to  raise  from  the  dead.  This  consideration 
might  seem  at  first  view  to  detract  from  the 
faith  of  Abraham.  If  lie  reflected  that  God 
could,  and  thought  it  very  possible  that  lie 
would,  raise  Isaac  from  the  dead,  the  difficulty 
and  heroism  of  putting  him  to  death  seem 
greatly  diminished.  But  here  is  precisely  the 
pith  of  the  writer's  argument.  He  has  not  in 
mind  the  struggle  of  Abraham's  feelings  in 
yielding  up  his  only  begotten  son,  his  heroism 
in  performing  a  difficult  and  dreadful  act,  but 
the  implicitness  and  absoluteness  of  that  faith 
wiiich  enabled  him  to  do  it.  For  Abraham  to 
have  proceeded  to  slay  Isaac  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  conmiand,  but  with  the  con- 
viction or  the  fear  that  the  pi'omise  was  thus  to 
be  nullified,  would  have  been  an  act  of  obedi- 
ence indeed,  but  by  no  means  distinctively  an 
act  of  faith.  His  faith  consisted  in  reconciling 
the  great  seeming  contradictions  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  He  had  received  promises 
guaranteed  by  the  veracity  of  Jehovah,  whose 
fulfillment  required  the  life  of  Isaac,  and  he 
was  now  commanded  to  perform  an  act  which, 
to  the  eye  of  sense,  extinguished  those  prom- 
ises forever.  Abraham  did  not  seize  either 
one  horn  of  the  dilemma.  He  did  not  either 
cling  to  the  promise  and  refuse  the  sacrifice, 
or  yield  obedience  and  abandon  the  promise. 
His  obedience  did  not  hesitate,  and  his  faith 
did  not  falter.  He  believed  that  God  could 
aiid  would  fulfill  his  promise,  and  that  in  this 
fulfillment  he  would  raise  Isaac  from  the  dead. 
Thus  it  is  not  mere  moral  heroism,  the  sacri- 
fice of  paternal  afl^ection,  despairing  obedience, 
that  the  author  is  here  celebrating;  hui  faith, 
confidence  in  spiritual  realities — a  belief  that 
God  is,  and  that  he  will  accomplish  his  prom- 
ises and  reward  his  servants.  It  is  faith  in  its 
double  aspect  of  confidence  in  what  is  hoped 
for,  and  conviction  of  what  is  unseen. 

From  whence  also  he  received  him  in  a 
figure  (back).  Of  all  the  interpretations 
put  on  this  much  disputed  clause,  this  is,  on 


th,e  whole,  perhaps  liable  to  the  least  objection. 
It  lies  naturally  in  the  words,  takes  'figure' 
(jrapa/SoAfl)  in  its  usual  New  Testament  sense, 
and  makes  an  unexceptionable  and  appropriate 
meaning.  We  must  be  careful,  however,  not 
to  reduce  the  meaning  of  'in  a  figure'  {if  napa- 
^oAtj)  to  a  mere  'as  it  were'  or  'so  to  speak' 
(cos  €iros  tine'iv),  which  deprives  it  of  all  its  force. 
We  must  give  it,  on  the  contrary,  its  full  sig- 
nification. Abraham  considered  that  God  was 
able  to  raise  Isaac  from  the  dead,  and  from 
the  dead  he  sj'mbolically  received  him.  Isaac, 
stretched  upon  the  altar,  lay  in  atypical  death. 
He  did  not  really  feel  the  power  of  death,  but 
lay  in  its  likeness  or  image;  and  in  a  likeness 
or  symbol,  as  one  who  had  been  devoted  to 
death  and  subject  to  its  power,  his  father  re- 
ceived him  back.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted 
that  the  author  regards  Isaac  here  as  a  type  of 
Christ,  and  that  in  this  latent  view  lies  the 
real  explanation.  Isaac  was  to  be  put  to  death, 
and  underwent  all  the  outward  forms  involved 
in  dying;  but  finally,  when  God's  purpose  was 
accomplished,  he  was  raised  without  actually 
tasting  of  death.  He  thus  typified  our  Lord, 
who  indeed  was  not  only  bound  and  con- 
demned, but  actually  drank  the  cup  of  death. 
Still  his  death,  after  all,  in  comparison  with 
ordinary  human  death,  was  as  the  death  of 
Isaac;  it  was  but  a  seeming,  a  parabolic  death. 
Death,  in  the  very  act  of  striking,  lost  his 
hold  upon  his  victim.  He  had  over  Christ  no 
real  power.  The  Saviour  laid  down  his  life, 
but  he  took  it  again;  snatched  himself  from 
the  mortality  and  corruption  of  the  grave,  and 
thus,  like  Isaac,  died  but  in  a  figure  (eV  irapa- 
PoKfj).  The  points  of  resemblance  then  are 
greater  than  the  points  of  contrast.  Abraham 
received  Isaac  from  the  dead  in  a  figure,  just 
as  the  Father  received  his  Son  who  was  cruci- 
fied. Both  were  condemned  to  death,  both 
stretched  out  upon  the  altar;  but  over  neither 
had  death  any  power;  over  the  one,  because 
the  slaughtering  knife  was  arrested  in  its  de- 
scent; over  the  other,  because,  although  it  fell 
and  his  blood  flowed,  yet  it  could  not  reach 
his  essential  vitality,  nor  prevent  him  froia 
speedily  and  triumphantly  emerging  from 
the  realm  of  death.  The  raising  of  Isaac, 
then,  was  an  acted  parable.     It  stood  along- 


156 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  xr. 


20  By  faith  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and  Esau  concerning 
things  to  come. 

21  By  faith  Jacob,  when  he  was  a  dying,  blessed  both 
the  sous  of  Joseph  :  and  worshipped,  leaning  upon  the 
top  of  his  staff. 

22  By  faith  Joseph,  when  he  died,  made  mention  of 


20  him  back.    By  faith  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and  Esau, 

21  even  concerning  things  to  come.  By  faith  Jacob, 
when  he  was  a  dying,  blessed  each  of  the  sons  of 
Joseph  ;  and  worshipped,  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his 

22  stafi".    By  faith  Joseph,  when  his  end  was  nigh,  made 


side  of,  symbolized,  represented,  an  actual 
raising  from  the  dead.  And  the  special  pro- 
priety of  so  representing  it  here  is  that  it  thus 
points  forward  to  a  similar,  but  far  more  mo- 
mentous transaction,  occurring  on  this  very 
spot,  in  which  ages  after,  the  great  Son  of 
Promise,  the  spiritual  Isaac,  in  whom  the  seed 
of  Abraham  were  to  be  called,  was  thus  by 
his  death  for  a  moment  to  darken  the  hopes  of 
his  followers,  and  apparently  defeat  the  prom- 
ises, but  in  reality  to  rise  again  essentially  un- 
touched by  its  power. 

To  enumerate  all  the  explanations  of  this 
difficult  passage  would  be  almost  endless.  I 
will  add  a  few.  They  have  turned  on  the  dif- 
ferent meanings  given,  partly  to  the  adverb 
''whence^  {oOiv),  partly  to  the  verb  received,  or 
'  recovered '  {Uoixiaino),  but  chiefly  to  the  words 
'in  a  figure'  (ev  irapapoxfj) .  In  regard  to  the 
first,  it  has  been  doubted  whether  the  adverb 
(60fv)  was  to  be  taken  locallj'^  ''from  whence,^  or 
logically,  as  everywhere  else  in  this  Epistle, 
'  whence, '  from  which  cause.  As  to  the  second, 
it  has  been  doubted  whether  the  verb  (iKoniaaro) 
meant  received,  bore  off  to  him,self,  obtained, 
referring  to  the  original  obtaining  of  Isaac,  or 
received  back,  recovered,  referring  to  his  pres- 
ent receiving  him  as  from  the  dead.  The 
meanings  of  the  phrase  'in  a  figure'  (iv  rrapa^oKri) 
are  much  more  various.  It  has  been  read 
'  in  a  figure  or  sj'mbol '  (equivalent  to  tU  rrapa- 
fioK^v) ;  namely,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
or  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  or  of  both. 
It  has  been  rendered  as  an  adverb  (equivalent 
to  irap(ip6\.ta^),  unexpectedly,  wonderfully:  'in 
the  way  of  substitution,'-  by  the  substitution  of 
the  ram ;  '  in  his  presenting  or  delivering  him 
up  ' ;   '  in  a  bold  venture,'  etc. 

20.  By  faith  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and 
Esau  concerning  things  to  come.  Things 
still  in  the  future,  and  which,  therefore,  he 
could  predict  only  in  faith  in  a  Being  at  once 
omniscient  and  omnipotent.  Apart  from  faith, 
all  forecasting  of  the  future  is  but  shrewd  con- 
jecture, and  all  prediction  is  fanaticism  or 
knavery.  Isaac  foretold  the  mutual  relations 
of  Jacob  and  Esau  (Gen.  27 :  22-29),  giving  to 
Jacob,  the  younger,  the  preference,  ^s  is  in- 


dicated also  by  the  first  place  being  given  to 
him  here. 

21.  By  faith  Jacob,  when  he  was  a  dying, 
blessed  both  (each  of)  the  sons  of  Jos- 
eph. Ephraim  and  Manasseh  (Gen.  48:20)  here 
again  also,  as^  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob  and 
Esau,  reversing  the  natural  relations  of  the 
two,  and  putting  the  3'ounger  before  the  elder 
— a  feature  which  made  the  element  of  faith 
more  marked  and  conspicuous.  Here,  as  in 
the  preceding  case,  confidence  in  God,  the 
Unseen  Kuler,  and  the  conviction  that  he  was 
speaking  under  his  inspiration,  vindicated  to 
his  blessing  the  character  of  faith.  And  wor- 
shipped (bowed  in  tvorship),  leaning  upon 
the  top  of  his  staff.  The  Hebrew  is  sup- 
posed to  mean  "And  prostrated  himself  in 
worship  upon  the  head  of  his  bed" — that  is, 
turned  himself  in  worship  so  as  to  bring  his 
face  to  the  pillow.  The  Septuagint  adopted  a 
different  pointing  from  the  Masoretic  (reading 
ntSD,  staff,  for  P^S,  bed),  having  in  mind, 
perhaps  (Gen.  32  •  10),  "With  my  staff  I  crossed 
over  the  Jordan."  The  difference  between 
the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint  was,  however,  of 
slight  consequence  to  the  auth()r,-and  it  was 
not  necessary  to  correct  the  version.  A  more 
serious  difficulty,  perhaps,  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  this  worshiping  of  Jacob  i.s  recorded  not 
in  connection  with  the  blessing  of  the  sons  of 
Joseph,  but  with  his  directing  Joseph  con- 
cerning his  burial.  (Gen. 47:31.)  Here,  again, 
we  may  simply  say  that  the  author  selected 
that  event  from  the  closing  life  of  Jacob, 
which  best — or,  at  least,  sufficiently' — illus- 
trated the  patriarch's  faith ;  and,  in  connection 
with  this,  introduced  the  equally  pertinent 
fact  of  his  'worshiping'  as  ftlso  illustrative  of 
his  faith.  The  close  connection  in  which  the 
two  events  stand  render  the  transfer  easy. 
He  might  have  mentioned  that  just  alluded  to, 
or  the  blessing  pronounced  in  the  spirit  of 
prophetic  faith  on  all  his  sons  (Gen.  49),  but  he 
lets  one  example  stand  for  the  whole. 

22.  By  faith  Joseph,  when  he  died — 
when  dying  {rfkevriov) ;  endinr/  his  life  (Gen.  50  :  26, 
cTcAeuTTj^c) — made  mention  of  the  departing 
of  the  children  {so7is)  of  Israel;  and  gave 


Ch.  xr.] 


HEBREWS. 


157 


the  departing  of  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  gave  com- 
luandiiieiit  conceming  his  bones. 

23  By  faith  Mn.sos,  when  he  was  born,  was  hid  three 
mouths  uf  his  parents,  because  tliey  saw  he  was  a  proper 
child  ;  and  they  were  not  afraid  of  the  king's  command- 
ment. 

24  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  come  to  years,  refused 
to  be  called  the  son  ol  Pharaoh's  daughter; 

25  Choosing  rather  to  sutler  attliction  with  the  people 
of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season  ; 


mention  of  the  departure  of  the  children  of  Israel; 

23  and  gave  commandment  concerning  his  bones.  By 
faith  Moses,  when  he  wa.>i  born,  was  hid  three  mouths 
by  his  parents,  because  they  saw  he  was  a  goodly 
child  ;  and  they  were  not  afraid  of  the  king's  com- 

24  maiidment.  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  grown  up, 
refused  to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  ; 

25  choosing  rather  to  be  evil  entreated  with  the  people 
of  (iod,  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  sea- 


commandment    concerning     his    bones. 

Though  early  transported  to  Egypt,  and  there 
having  flourished  through  a  long  period  of 
prosperity  and  power,  and  though  his  family 
were  now  all  happily,  and,  apparently,  perma- 
nently located  there,  Joseph  yet  remembered 
the  promise,  and  his  heart  and  his  faith  turned 
to  the  true  iiome  of  Israel.  His  command 
concerning  his  bones  was  made  in  the  full 
faith  that,  against  all  present  appearances,  the 
promise  would  yet  be  fulfilled,  and  with  firm 
trust,  therefore,  in  the  being  and  the  veracity 
of  the  unseen  but  Omnipotent  Promiser.  His 
dying  request  was  complied  with.  (Ex. i3:i9.) 
His  bones  wore  placed  (Josh.  24:32)  in  Shechem, 
in  the  field  purchased  by  his  father. 
(«)  Example  of  Moses.  (23-29.) 
From  the  patriarchs  of  Israel,  the  writer 
passes  to  its  great  leader,  Moses. 

23.  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  born, 
was  hidden  three  months  of  {by)  his  pa- 
rents {ita.Te(mv — literally,  fathers ;  put  here  for 
father  and  mother)  because  they  saw  he.was 
a  proper  child — or,  that  the  child  was  fair 
(Acts? :  20),  a  child  'divinely  fair '  (aartlov  tw  fletS, 
fair  for  God).  It  was  no  mere  human  admir- 
ation of  its  beauty  that  moved  the  parents  to 
save  the  life  of  the  child;  but  something  in 
the  character  of  its  beautj',  which  marked  it 
for  a  higher  destiny,  for  the  fulfillment  of 
some  divine  purpose.  Their  faith  consisted 
apjiareiitly  in  this— that,  recognizing  the  child 
as  born  for  some  special  mission,  they  dis- 
obe^-ed  the  mandate  of  the  king  for  his  de- 
struction. Without  a  divinely  infused  spiritual 
element  in  their  motive,  God  would  not  have 
given  them  the  faith  for  its  execution.  Nor 
did  their  hiding  of  Moses  indicate  a  lack  of 
faith.  Precisely  the  reverse.  Their  purpose 
to  save  Moses  in  disregard  of  the  royal  edict, 
indicated  faith,  and  led  to  their  using  the 
necessary  means  of  saving  him.  Without 
the  using  of  those  means,  faith  would  not 
have  been  faith,  but  presumption.  It  is  not 
audacity,  nor  mere  courage,  that  the  author 


celebrates,  but  faith — the  divinely  inspired 
principle  that  believes  in  the  future  and  be- 
holds the  unseen. 

24.  By  faith  Moses,  vjhen  he  was  grown 
up — being  grown  to  manhood;  literally,  be- 
coming large,  or  grown  (Exod.  2:ii) ;  accord- 
ing to  Acts  7  :  23,  about  forty  years  old ;  not. 
as  some,  "  becoming  great  in  reputation  and 
power"— refused  to  be  called  the  son  of 
Pharaoh's  daughter.  The  absence  of  the 
article  before  'daughter'  may  be  accidental; 
or  it  may  be  intended  to  turn  attention  from  the 
person  to  the  rank — a  daughter  of  the  royal 
family  of  Egypt.  This  refusal  (or,  denial) 
may  not  have  been  made  on  any  specific  occa- 
sion. His  refusal  was  a  practical  one;  it  first 
evinced  itself  outwardly,  and,  perhaps,  to  his 
own  consciousness,  in  the  acts  by  which  he 
showed  that  his  heart  and  his  allegiance  were 
with  his  people  and  their  God,  perhaps  by  his 
slaying  the  Egyptian,  and  his  flight  to  Midian. 

(Exod.  2  :  12,  15.) 

25.  Choosing  (not,  having  chosen,  as  the 
tense  of  the  participle  allows,  but  does  not 
require;  the  'refusing'  and  the  'choosing' 
appear  as  coincident)  rather  to  suflTer  afflic- 
tion with  the  people  of  God  than  to 
enjoy  the  pleasure.^  of  sin  for  a  season 
(have  a  temporary  enjoyment  from,  sin). 

'  To  suffer  affliction '  (Kaitoi>x«i<TSot,  to  be  ill- 
treated),  to  meet  treatment  such  as  the  Jews 
were  then  experiencing  from  Pharaoh,  who 
knew  not  Joseph.  When  Moses  made  his 
choice  the  people  were  in  ignominious  and 
degrading  bondage.  He  chose  to  share  their 
fortunes,  j'et.  in  a  divinely  inspired  faith 
(Acts 7: 25)  that  through  his  hand  God  would 
work  their  salvation.  We  must  remember 
that  throughout  this  catalogue  it  is  not  natural 
courage  or  patriotism  that  is  celebrated,  but 
the  faith  that  apprehends  alike  both  the 
unseen  and  the  future.  '  The  people  of  God  ' 
— the  standing  name  of  the  Jews  in  the  Old 
Testament,  not  as  necessnrilj'  involving  a 
spiritual  character,  but  marking  their  divine 


158 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


26  Esteeming  the  repiouch  of  Christ  greater  riches  1  26  ^u  ;   accounting  the  reproach   of   '  Christ  greater 
than  tlie  treasures  in  Egypt:  for  he  had  respect  uuto  riches  than  the  tieasiires  of  Egypt-  for  he  loolsed 

the  recompense  of  the  reward.  { 

1  Or,  the  Chritt. . 


selection.  God  had  chosen  the  patriarchs,  and 
they  had  expanded  into  'a  people.'  Under 
Moses  they  were  to  become  an  organized  com- 
munity— the  Old  Testament 'people  of  God.' 
'The  temporary  enjoyment  of  sin' — not  ex- 
actly equivalent  to  our  phrase,  "The  pleas- 
ures of  sin  for  a  season."  The  reference  is 
not  to  what  are  strictly  called  sinful  pleasures. 
The  'enj<jyment'  wiiich  Moses  renounced 
might  have  been,  under  other  circumstances, 
perfectly  legitimate.  It  was  legitimate  in  the 
case  of  David  and  Solomon — the  power  and 
splendor  of  a  throne.  Moses  could  purchase 
them  only  by  that  apostasy  from  God  in  which 
theautiior  (led  partly,  perhaps,  by  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  his  readers)  finds  the  essence 
of  all  sin  (3: 12,  i3;  io:26) ;  and  called,  as  was 
Moses,  to  the  deliverance  of  his  enslaved 
countrymen,  he  could  purchase  this  earthly 
rank  and  greatness  only  by  turning  his  back 
on  his  calling,  his  people,  and  his  God.  He 
could  have  purchased  it  only  by  'sin.'  'Sin,' 
here,  is  not  the  genitive  of  the  object,  but  of 
the  subject.  It  is  not  the  enjoyment  which 
consists  in  sin,  but  the  enjoyment  which  would 
have  arisen  from  sin. 

26.  Esteeming  [accounting)  the  reproach 
of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treas- 
ures of  Egypt — which  as  sovereign  of  Egypt 
he  would  have  enjoyed,  but  which  would 
have  brought  to  him  less  true  happiness,  atid 
therefore  less  real  wealth,  than  'the  reproach 
of  Christ.'  Of  this  brief  phrase  it  is  difficult 
to  reach  the  exact  meaning.  Moses'  choice 
had  of  course  reference  to  the  condition  of  the 
Israelites  when  he  made  it.  They  were  suffer- 
ing outrage,  indignity,  reproach.  This  Moses 
chose  to  suffer  along  with  them.  This  're- 
proach' and  contumely  endured  by  the  people, 
into  which  Moses  entered,  was  'the  reproach 
of  Christ.'  It  is  not,  then,  merely  such  re- 
proach as  Christ  endured,  or  such  reproach  as 
his  service  imposes.  The  '  reproach,'  the 
shame  of  the  people,  were  the  reproach,  the 
shame  of  Christ,  which  Moses  took  upon  him- 
self in  casting  in  his  lot  with  the  people  of 
God.  In  what  sense,  then,  were  the  wrongs 
and  outrages  inflicted  on  the  chosen   people 


the  reproach  of  Christ?  In  a  typical  sense, 
says  Hofmann,  in  that  Israel  in  Egypt  was  a 
type  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  its  bondage 
and  sulferiiigs,  in  its  spiritual  calling,  as  the 
predestined  fountain  of  salvation,  not  merely 
in  its  natural  relations,  prefigured  the  indigni- 
ties heaped  on  him  in  whom  Israel's  spiritual 
calling  found  its  consummation.  In  a  mysti- 
cal sense,  says  Stier,  in  that  the  people  of  God 
in  all  times  have  a  vital  bond  of  union.  The 
Old  Testament  believers  were  already  mem- 
bers of  the  as  yet  un  revealed  Head.  In  the 
pre-existcnt  pTrsence  of  Christ,  as  Logos  in  the 
Old  Testament  Israel,  say  De  Wette  and  Tho- 
luck ;  "the  reproach  which  Moses  took  on 
himself  is  called  the  'reproach  of  Christ,'  as 
Paul  calls  the  sufferings  of  Christians  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ — that  is,  Christ  struggling 
and  suftering  in  his  church,  as  in  his  body. 
But  this  reproach  is  referred  to  him  here,  in 
view  of  the  oneness  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Tes- 
taments, and  the  Eternal  Logos  ruling  in  the 
former."  Delitzs^h  unites  all  these  idegs,  with 
the  added  thought  of  a  certain  preparation  for 
the  incarnation  and  sufferings  of  Christ  run- 
ning- through  the  history  of  ancient  Israel, 
and  thus  finding  it  dimly  pointed  to  in  this 
ignominy  and  reproach  of  the  people  of  God 
in  Egypt. 

A  moment's  survey  of  Moses'  peculiar  posi- 
tion may  reconcile  us  to  this  complex  concep- 
tion. Beyond  all  preceding  believers,  Moses 
typified  Christ.  He  was  the  Old  Testament 
apostle,  the  commissioned  one  of  God.  He 
was  the  Old  Testament  deliverer,  the  rescuer 
of  God's  people  from  bondage.  He  was  the 
human  founder  of  the  Old  Testament  house- 
hold of  God.  And  in  all  these  capacities  he  was 
the  direct  antitype  of  our  Lord.  He  wrote 
and  prophesied  of  Christ.  In  him  the  Messi- 
anic promise  arose  on  the  world  with  a  full- 
ness and  clearness  which  it  had  not  assumed 
before.  The  typical  character  of  the  Old 
Testament  history  was  deepening,  and  all  the 
relations  of  Moses  were  pregnant  with  Messi- 
anic significance.  In  a  sense,  therefore,  which 
could  be  attributed  to  none  of  his  predeces- 
sors,   the   shame    and    reproach    into  which 


Ch.  XI] 


HEBREWS. 


159 


27  By  faith  he  forsook  Kgypt,  not  fearing  the  wrath 
of  the  Icing:  for  he  endured,  as  seeing  him  who  is  in- 
visible. 

•28  Tlirougli  faith  he  kept  the  passover,  and  the 
bprinkling  oi  blood,  lest  he  that  destroyed  the  firstborn 
should  touch  theiu. 


27  unto  the  recompense  of  reward.  By  raith  be  forsook 
Kgypt,  not  fearing  the  wralh  of  the  kii.g :  for  he  eii- 

28  dured,  as  seeing  him  who  is  invisihie.  By  faith  lie 
1  kept  the  passover,  and  the  sprinkling  of  llie  blo<jd, 
that  the  de.'^trover  of  the  firstborn  should  not  touch 


1  Or,  initituted.    Or.  hath  made. 


Moses  entered  were  the  shame  and  reproach 
of  Clirist. 

27.  By  faith  he  forsook  (quitted)  Egypt, 
not  fearing  the  wrath  of  the  king.  Inter- 
preters have  widely  differed  on  this  passage, 
whether  it  refers  to  Moses'  first  leaving  of 
Egypt  for  the  Land  of  Midian,  or  his  second 
and  final  quitting  of  it  for  Canaan.  The  early 
expositors  generally  referred  it  to  the  former; 
Calvin  and  many  succeeding  scholars  (as 
Bohme,  Bleek,  Ebrard)  to  the  latter;  while 
Bengel,  De  Wette,  Tholuck,  Liinetnann,  Del- 
itzsch,  Moll,  espouse  the  older  view.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  older  view  is  almost  certainly 
right.  As  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  two 
events,  while  the  later  one  assumes  the  greater 
formal  magnitude,  yot  really  the  flight  into 
Midian  was  intrinsically  not  less  significant, 
as  decisive  of  Moses'  whole  subsequent  career. 
It  was  pre-eminently  in  this  that  he  turned  his 
back  on  Egyptian  royalty,  and  sealed  his  ad- 
herence to  the  fortunes  of  his  people.  It  may 
have  been  this  flight  which  declared  his  em- 
phatic refusal  to  be  called  the  son  of  a  daugh- 
ter of  Pharaoh.  The  term  applied  to  his  leav- 
ing, quitted,  abandoned  (KartAin-ei'),  though  it 
might  indeed  be  applied  to  the  Exodus,  seems 
here  "to  point  to  something  personally  and 
exclusively  pertaining  to  Moses."  Also  the 
phrase  "not  fearing  the  wrath  of  the  king"  is, 
on  the  whole,  I  think,  more  favorable  to  this 
view.  In  the  later  Exodus  there  was  no  im- 
mediate question  of  the  wrath  of  the  king 
(though  he  did  finally  pursue  with  his  army 
the  retreating  Israelites) ;  but  in  his  first  with- 
drawal he  fled  directly  from  the  wrath  of  the 
king.  But  this  is  no  real  impeachment  of 
the  author's  accuracy.  Moses  fled  from  the 
wrath  of  the  king,  because  he  would  not  suc- 
cumb to  his  will,  and  because  he  had  chosen  a 
course  which  defied  his  power.  The  immedi- 
ate act  of  flight  was  (like  his  parents'  hiding 


him  when  he  was  an  infant)  an  act  of  prudent 
fear;  the  general  decision  smd  course  wliich 
rendered  that  flight  necessary  was  a  practical 
defiance,  in  faith,  of  Egypt's  sovereignty,  and 
a  turning  of  his  back  on  all  the  greatness  it 
could  offer  him.  ,  Moses'  course  in  either  of  the 
two  departures  was  determined  and  pursued  in 
practical  and  open  defiance  of  the  wrath  of  the 
king;^  but  the  language  seems  more  especially 
applicable  to  the  first,  besides  its  chronological 
relation  to  the  subsequently  mentioned  pass- 
over  and  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea. 

For  he  endured,  as  seeing  him  {the  King) 
Avho  is  invisible.  As  before  he  evinced  that 
feature  of  faith  which  has  confidence  in  hoped- 
for  good,  so  here  that  element  of  it  which  be- 
lieves in  unseen  realities.  He  could  defy  the 
sovereign  whom  he  saw,  because  his  believing 
eye  was  fixed  on  the  Sovereign — such  is  evi- 
dently the  ellipsis — whom  he  saw  not,  and 
whom  none  sees."  The  unseen  King  was  the 
King  of  kings. 

28.  Through  faith  he  kept  (Gr.,  hasmade) 
the  passover.  'Made'  here,  probably  not in- 
stituted,  but  performed,  celebrated,  although 
the  perfect  tense  has  made  may  be  used,  with 
reference  to  the  results  of  that  celebration  hav- 
ing continued  down  to  the  then  present  time — 
'  he  has  performed  that  paschal  rite  which  is  the 
foundation  of  the  permanent  institution.  And 
the  sprinkling  {pouring  forth)  of  blood — 
the  pouring  or  smearing  of  blood  on  the  door- 
posts and  thresholds.  (Exocl.  12:7,  22,  etsrq.)  At 
this  time  the  act  was  rather  a  sprinkling  or 
smearing  than  strictly  pouring,  the  language, 
perhaps,  being  drawn  from  later  usage,  when 
the  blood  was  poured  out  at  the  foot  of  the 
altar.  Lest,  etc. — that  he  who  destroyed  the 
first  born  might  not  touch  them.  (Exod.  12:  2n.) 
Moses  and  the  Israelites  performed  this  pas- 
chal rite  at  the  command  of  God.  sprinkling 
the  blood  of  the  victim  on  the  doorposts,  and 


'  The  faith  of  Moses  lay  in  his  decision,  and  Its  spir- 
itual grounds.  Having  this  faith  and  acting  upon  It, 
he  would  do  whatever  acts  his  choice  thus  made  in- 
volved— to  face  Pharaoh,  or  to  flee  from  him.  When 
the  time  came  to /ace  him,  God  nerved  him  to  do  it. 


2  A  like  paradox  and  paranomasia,  and  in  repard  to  a 
like  subject  {ra.  aopara  KaSoparai,  there  mediated  by 
cooii/Kfo,  see  ver.  3)  in  Rom.  1:2');  one  of  the  occasional 
points  of  contact  between  two  minds"  wide  as  the  polei 
asunder"  in  constitution  and  culture. 


160 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


29  By  faith  they  passed  through  the  lied  sea  as  by 
dry  land  :  which  the  Egyptians  assaying  to  do  were 
drowned. 

30  By  faith  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  down,  after  they 
were  compassed  about  seven  days. 

:'A  By  faith  the  harlot  Rahab 'perished  not  with  them 
that  believed  not,  wheu  she  had  received  the  spies  with 
peace. 

32  And  what  shall  I  more  say  ?   for  the  time  would 


29  them.    By  faith  they  passed  through  the  Red  sea  as 
by  dry  land:   which  the  Egyptians  assaying  to  do 

30  were  swallowed  up.     By  faith  the  walls  of  Jericho 
fell  down,  after  they  had  been  compassed  about  for 

31  seven  days.     By  faith  Rahab  the  harlot  perished  not 
with  them  that  were  disobedient,  having  received 

32  the  spies  with  peace.    And  what  shall  I  more  say  ? 


eating  with  loins  girded,  shoes  on  their  feet, 
and  staff  in  hand.  Thus  there  was  a  double 
symbol  and  a  twofold  exercise  of  faith.  Their 
sprinkling  the  blood  of  the  lamb  as  a  security 
against  the  Destroying  Angel  marked  their 
trust  in  God,  who  had  instituted  means  in 
themselves  so  impotent  for  the  result;  and 
their  eating  the  passover  girded  and  equipped 
for  travel,  showed  their  confidence  that  the 
long-delayed  hour  of  deliverance,  in  spite  of 
the  king  of  Egypt,  had  come  at  last. 

29.  By  faith  they  passed  through  the 
Red  Sea  as  by  {through)  dry  land.  The 
transition  to  the  plural,  'Israelites,'  is  entirely 
natural.  It  is,  of  course,  not  affirmed  that 
faith  was  individually  exercised  by  all  the 
vast  company.  The  act  as  a  whole  was  one 
which  demanded,  and  was  made  in,  faith. 
Nothing  but  miraculous  power  could  cause 
the  waters  to  retire,  and  open  a  safe  passage 
for  the  multitude  through  the  bared  bosom  of 
the  sea.  And  as  divine  power  could  alone 
produce  the  result,  so  faith  in,  at  least,  the 
leader  of  Israel,  was  the  condition  of  its  exer- 
cise. "When  Moses  was  bid  to  stretch  out  his 
rod  over  the  sea,  had  he  unbelievinglj' refused, 
or  unbelievingly  performed  the  act,  the  result 
would  not  have  followed.  God  opened  the 
miracles  of  his  power,  as  he  does  those  of  his 
grace,  to  the  call  of  faith.  The  faith  which 
moved  the  arm  of  Moses  moved  also  the  arm 
of  Omnipotence.  Nor  need  this  fact  stumble 
us,  for  the  faith  itself  was  an  inspiration  of 
the  Almighty— was  the  first  act  of  the  miracle. 
The  faith  that  upheld  the  walking,  and  the 
arm  that  sustained  the  sinking,  Peter,  were 
alike  the  Lord's.  Which  the  Egyptians, 
etc.  —  Of  which  the  Egyptians,  making  trial, 
were  swallovjed  vp.  "  Of  which  "  ;  namely, 
either  'dry  land'  (Inpo?  scil.  v"!?),  or,  'sea' 
(floAatrffT)?),  with  either  of  which  the  pronoun 
equal  1}' well  agrees;  or,  possibly,  'crossing' 
(6tai8d(r«<09,  supplied  from  JtopaiVu),  '  of  which 
crossing  or  passage,'  etc.  'Swallowed  up,' 
a  forcible  metaphor  from  the  verb  '  to  drink 

up     (KarairtVw). 


(/)  Examples  from  the  Exodus  of  Israel  to 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees.     (30-40.) 
30.  By  faith  the  Avails  of  Jericho  fell, 

etc. — beiyig  encompassed  about  seven  days. 
'By  faith,'  of  the  people  and  priests,  with 
Joshua  at  their  head ;  not  necessarily  a  vital 
faith  in  all,  though  the  recent  wonders  must 
have  made  it  well  nigh  universal.  This  faith 
led  them  to  perform  an  act  not  having  the 
slightest  intrinsic  power  or  tendency  to  accom- 
plish the  result;  and  God,  in  reward  of  their 
faith  and  obedience,  miraculously  accom- 
plished it.  Faith  here,  as  elsewhere,  implies, 
as  conditions  of  the  act  and  result,  a  quality 
in  the  actor.  The  inhering  quality  leading  to 
the  result  is  expressed  elliptically  by  '  By 
faith  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell.'  The  faith 
induced  the  compassing,  which  was  the  out- 
ward, as  faith  was  the  inward,  condition  of 
the  overthrow. 

81.  By  faith  Rahab,  the  harlot,  per- 
ished not  with  them  that  disobeyed. 
(Josh. 2: 6; 7:22, seq.)  Rahab  had  been,  in  her 
previous  life,  like  Mary  Magdalene,  a  dis- 
reputable woman ;  but  she  was  a  chosen  vessel 
of  mercy,  and  selected  to  be  in  the  ancestral 
line  of  David  and  of  Jesus ;  for  the  like  reason, 
I  think,  with  the  selection  of  Ruth,  the  Moab- 
itess,  and  of  the  son  of  Bathsheba,  to  fore- 
shadow the  broadness  of  the  coming  redemp- 
tion. When  she  had  {having)  received  the 
spies  with  peace.  When  the  Israelitish  spies 
entered  Canaan,  she  received  them  hosi)it!ibly, 
saved  them  from  capture,  and  dismissed  them 
in  peace  (Josh.  2 :  ii) ;  and  this  from  no  treachery 
to  her  country,  but  from  a  divinely  wrought 
conviction,  founded  on  the  wonders  God  had 
wrought,  that  Jehovah  was  God  in  heaven 
and  earth,  and  had  given  them  the  land.  For 
this  so  remarkable  faith,  she  perished  not 
when  her  people  (Josh.  6: 21)  were  consigned  to 
destruction. 

32.  And  what,  etc. — And  why  do  I  speak 
further?  or,  as  many,  ^  And  what  shall  I  say 
farther?'  with  little  difference  in  the  sonso. 
The  author  finds  it  vain  to  attempt  an  enu- 


Ch.  XL] 


HEBREWS. 


161 


fail  me  to  tell  of  Gideon,  and  0/  Barak,  and  0/  Samsou, 
and  ((/ Jeiihlhali :  of  David  also,  and  Saiuiiel,  and  uj  tbe 
jirophets : 

3.J  Who  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought 
righteousness,  obtained  promises,  stopped  the  mouihs 
of  lions, 

34  Quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  escaped  the  edge  of 
the  sword,  out  of  weakness  were  made  strong,  waxed 
valiant  in  tight,  turned  to  tlight  the  armies  of  the  aliens. 


for  the  time  will  fail  me  if  I  tell  of  Gideon,  Barak, 
Samson,  Jeplithah;   of  David  and  Samuel  and  ihu 

33  proi)liets:  who  through  faith  suljdued  kingdoms, 
wrought   righteousness,  obtained  promises,  stopped 

34  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched  the  jx»wer  of  tire,  es- 
caped tbe  edge  of  the  sword,  from  weakness  wero 
made  strong,  waxed  mighty  in  war,  tjriied  to  flight 


ineration  of  nil  the  ancient  heroes  of  faith.  In 
fact,  he  has  just  reached  the  period  of  history 
when  they  swarm  thickly  upon  him.  For 
the  time  would  (will)  fail  ma- in  recount- 
tug  concerning  Oldeon,  Barak,  Samson  — 
three  among  the  judges  of  Israel,  Gideon 
put  before  the  earlier,  Barak,  because,  per- 
haps, a  more  notable  exatnple  of  faith.  Barak 
needed  to  be  spurred  on  by  Deborah,  but  still 
exemplified,  though  not  in  the  most  striking 
manner,  the  Old  Testament  faith.  Samson, 
too,  displays  in  sacred  history  no  specially 
elevtited  character;  yet,  chosen  and  raised  up 
by  God,  he  wrought  deliverance  for  his  country 
in  his  natne.  The  humblest  of  these  Hebrew 
believers  still  stood  in  bright  contrast  with  the 
great  ones  of  the  Gentiles.  Their  standard  of 
moral  action  was,  in  tnany  points,  low ;  but 
tliey  had  &.  principle  of  belief  and  trust  in  the 
living  God  which  tended  to  the  development 
of  all  virtue.  That  principle,  as  yet  wrought 
but  itnperfectly  through  the  limited  bestow- 
mentof  the  Spirit,  whose  fuller  effusion  was  to 
signalize  a  later  age.  Of  Jephthah  ;  of  David 
also,  and  Samuel,  and  of  the  prophets. 
David  again  is  put  before  Samuel,  in  order, 
probably,  to  bring  the  latter  into  connection 
with  the  prophets,  of  whose  order  he  might 
be  almost  regarded  as  the  founder.  'The 
prophets'  are  Elijah,  Elisha,  Isaiah,  etc., 
down  through  the  long  ages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history. 

33.  Who  through  faith  subdued  king- 
doms—as Gideon  the  Canaanites,  Jephthtih 
the  Ammonites,  Samson  the  Philistines,  David 
manj'  kings  and  kingdoms.  Wrought  right- 
eousness— either,  as  kings  and  judges  and 
prophets  executed  righteousness  and  judgment 
for  the  people,  or  in  their  own  persons  per- 
formed acts  of  righteousness.  Of  Samuel  and 
David,  and  <>f  Elijah,  Elisha,  and  Isaiah,  and 
many  of  the  later  prophets,  this  was  emi- 
nently true  ;  some  earlier  ones,  whose  lives 
do  notshine  on  tlie  page  of  history,  still,  judged 
by  the  s'andard  of  their  times,  doubtless  often 


— Realized  the  fulfillment  of  promises.  This 
is  true,  doubtless,  of  mtiny  earlier  heroes.  God 
promised  them  success,  and  bestowed  it  in  re- 
sponse to  their  faith.  It  is,  perhaps,  still  more 
emphatically  true  of  many  later  ones.  Joel 
obtained  the  promise  of  the  removal  of  the 
locusts  and  the  drought;  Isaiah,  of  the  deliv- 
erance of  Jerusalem  by  the  annihilation  of 
the  hosts  of  Assyria;  Daniel,  of  the  end  of 
the  Chaldean  captivity.  And,  as  they  ob- 
tained the  promises,  so  they  obtained  their 
fulfillment.  Stopped  (shut)  the  mouths  of 
lions.  Samson  and  David  both  fought  with 
lions  and  overcame  them  ( Judg.  u :  6 ;  1  sam.  17 :  3*-x6)  • 
but  the  reference  seeins  specially  to  Daniel  in 
the  lions'  den,  "Who  shut  the  mouth  of  the 
lions"  (Septuagint).     (Dan. 6: is.) 

34.  Quenched  the  violence  (]->owe7-)  of 
fire.  Expressive;  not  merely  the _/?rr?«es,  but 
the  power.  Reference  to  the  three  youths  who 
(Dan.  3 : 1-30),  for  their  refusal  to  bow  to  the  idol 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  were  thrown  into  a  fiery 
furnace,  and  came  forth  without  even  the 
'smell  of  fire  on  their  garments.'  Escaped 
the  edge  of  the  sword — as  Dtivid  that  of 
Saul  (1  Sam.  18 :  11),  Elijah  that  of  Jezebel,  Elisha 
the  encompassing  hosts  of  Syria;  Jeremiah, 
Baruch,  Ebedmelech,  Gedeliah,  in  Chaldean 
times.  Out  of  (/row)  weakness  were  made 
strong.  Samson  was  restored  from  his  help- 
lessness; David  often  was  brought  up  from 
the  depths  of  despair;  Hezekiah,  brought  to 
the  verge  of  the  grave,  had  his  life  lengthened 
fifteen  years.  Waxed  (became)  valiant  in 
fight — proved  themselves  tnighty  in  war — 
Joshua,  the  judges,  David,  and  many  believ- 
ing and  victorious  heroes  in  the  time  of  the 
kings.  Turned,  etc.,  to  rout  armies  of  for- 
eigners. Gideon,  Jonathan,  and  many  others. 
Perhaps,  however  (with  Delitzsch),  in  several 
of  these  latter  specifications,  as  'escaped  the 
edge  of  the  sword,'  and  thence  on,  the  author 
has  in  mind,  along  with  the  earlier  acts,  the 
times  of  the  Maccabees:  "The  escape  of 
Mattathias  and  his  sons  to  the  mountains,  the 


exercised  high  virtues.     Obtained  promises  i  trustful  uprising  of  the  small  and  increasing 


162 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XI. 


35  Women  received  their  dead  raised  to  life  again: 
and  others  were  tortcired,  not  accepting  deliverance; 
that  they  might  obtain  a  better  resurrection  : 

36  And  others  had  trial  of  true/  niockings  and  scourg- 
ings,  yea,  moreover  of  bonds  and  imprisonment: 

oT  Tliey  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  were 
tempte<l,  were  slain  with  the  sword  :  thi-y  wandered 
about  in  sheepskins  and  goatskins ;  being  destitute, 
afflicted,  tormented ; 


35  armies  of  aliens.  Women  received  their  dead  by  a 
resurrection  :  and  others  were  ^  tortured,  not  accept- 
ing 2  their  deliverance;   that  they   might  obtain  a 

36  better  resurrection:  and  oiheis  had  trials  of  mock- 
ings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover  of  bonds  and  im- 

37  prisonment :  they  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn 
asunder,  they  were  tempted,  they  were  slain  with 
the  sword :  they  went  about  in  sheepskins,  in  goat- 


1  Or,  beaten  to  death 2  Gr.  the  redemption. 


host,  the  first  victories  of  Judas  Maccabeus 
over  Apollonius,  Seron,  etc.,  the  formal  vic- 
torious wars  of  the  Hasmonsean  heroes  with 
the  Syrians  and  neighboring  nations.  It  has 
been  alleged,  indeed,  that  the  mighty  inspira- 
tion of  the  Maccabean  period  was  rather 
human  than  divine,  rather  patriotically  pop- 
ular than  theocratically  national  ;  but  the 
Book  of  Daniel  shows,  in  prophetic  deline- 
ation of  that  time,  a  holy  peopl'3  of  the  Most 
High  struggling  with  the  impious,  anti- 
Christian  world-power,  and  claims  for  their 
struggles  the  greatest  conceivable  significance 
in  the  march  of  sacred  history."  Hence, 
Delitzsch  regards  these  declarations  as  point- 
ing specially  to  the  Maccabean  times.^  This 
seems  the  more  probable,  as  some  of  the  im- 
mediately following  examples  seem,  almost 
beyond  doubt,  to  be  taken  from  the  Macca- 
bees. 

35.  Women  received  their  dead — by  a 
resurrection.  As  the  woman  of  Sarepta 
(1  Kings  17 :  17),  her  son  restored  by  Elijah  ;  that 
of  theShunamites('^Kings4:i7)  by  Elisha.  And 
others  were  tortured  {stretclied  on  the 
wheel),  as  the  aged  Eleazar  and  the  seven 
brothers  with  their  mother  (^Macce:  i8-3i:7,  s.seq.) 
tortured  on  the  tympanum.,  a  wheel-formed 
instrument  of  torture,  on  whose  spokes  the 
victims  had  their  limbs  extended,  and  were 
thus  barbarously  maltreated.  Not  accept- 
ing deliverance  ;  that  they  might  obtain 
a  better  resurrection.  These  Maccabean 
martyrs  are  probably  placed  in  contrast  with 
the  women  above  named,  whose  faith  serves 
but  as  a  foil  to  that  of  the  others.  These 
women  had  faith  which  enabled  them  to  re- 
ceive their  sons  to  earthly  life  by  resurrec- 
tion; the  heroes  of  Maccabees  had  faith  which 
Enabled  them,  when  their  earthly  life  was 
offered  them  at  the  expense  of  their  religion, 
to  sacrifice  it  for  a  still  better  resurrection — a 
resurrection,  not  to  their    transitory  earthly 


life,  but  of  the  glorified  body,  to  life  eternal. 
"The  King  of  the  world,"  said  the  second  of 
the  sons  (2  Mace.  7:9),  "will  awaken  us,  dying  on 
behalf  of  his  laws,  to  a  life  eternal."  It  is  an 
interesting  question  how  far  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  had  developed 
itself  out  of  the  hints  of  the  Old  Testament 
(as  Dan.  12  :  2),  so  that  our  Saviour  had  not  so 
much  to  announce  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion as  hlm.'ielf  as  its  author,  and  so  that  when 
he  said  to  Martha,  "Thy  brother  shall  rise 
again,"  she  was  prepared  from  her  antecedent 
teaching  to  reply:  "I  know  thtit  he  shall  rise 
in  the  resurrection,  in  the  last  day." 

36.  And  others  had  {received)  trial  of 
mockings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover 
{further),  of  bonds  and  imprisonment. 
Still  the  heroes  of  the  Maccabean  times  (1 
Mace.  9  :  26;  2  Mace.  6  :  30;  7  :  37,  in  which 
the  terms  here  used  are  found). 

37.  They  were  stoned.  Zechariah,  son  of 
Jehoiada  (2  Chron.  24 :  20-22),  and,  according  to  tra- 
dition, Jeremiah,  the  author  turning  back  now 
to  inspired  history.  They  were  sawn  asun« 
der — perhaps  Isaiah,  who  is  said  to  have  ex- 
perienced this  fate  from  Manasseh.  Were 
tempted — a  declaration  in  this  place,  between 
the  preceding  and  following  verbs,  unnatural 
and  unaccountable.  It  is  probably  either  a 
careless  transcription  and  corruption  of  the 
preceding  word  ('sawn  asunder,  inpaaOrtaav \ 
'tempted,'  ineipaaSr^aav) ,  or  a  Corruption  of 
some  word  of  kindred  form  (as  enpicey\aav,  or 
eTrp^o-eijo-ov,  or  iv€itpri<r0r)<Tat',  v}ere  bumt).  They 
were  slain  with  (literally,  died  by  slaughter 
of)  the  sword.  The  martyrdom  of  prophets 
was  coinmon  in  Israel,  as  by  Ahab,  Omri,  etc. 
(I  Kings  19: 10.)  See  in  general  Matt:  23:37: 
"O  Jerusalem!  Jerusalem!  thou  that  killest 
the  prophets,  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent 
unto  thee !  "  They  wandered  {went)  about 
in  sheepskins — more  especially  Elijah,  who 
lived   a   wandering,   solitary,   almost    savage 


I  It  is  especially  worthy  of  note  that  the  words  >rop«|ii./3o\at,  oAAdrpioi,  are  favorite  words  in  the  Maccabean  records. 


Ch.  XL] 


HEBREWS. 


163 


38  Of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy  :  they  wan- 
dered in  deserts,  and  in  uiouutains,  and  m  dens  and 
caves  of  the  earth. 

3y  And  these  all,  having  obtained  a  good  report 
through  faith,  received  not  the  promise : 


38  skins;  being  destitute,  afflicted,  evil  entreated,  (of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy),  wandering  in 
deserts  and  mountains  and  caves  and  the  holes  of 

39  the  earth.  And  these  all,  having  nad  witness  borne 
to  them  through  their  faith,  received  not  the  promise, 


life,  clothed  in  sheepskins,  and  still  more 
coarsely,  in  goatskins;  being  destitute, 
afflicted,  tormented  {maltreated).  The 
lives  of  Elijah  and  many  of  those  prophets  of 
God  were  a  perpetual  succession  of  destitu- 
tion, of  affliction,  and  of  persecution  and  out- 
rage. 

38.  Of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy 
— a  sort  of  abrupt  and  unexpected  turn.  In- 
stead of  saying,  'being  deemed  unworthy  by 
the  world,'  which  would  naturally  stand  in 
connection  with  the  world's  rejection  of  them, 
he  adds,  as  it  were  unexpectedly,  the  real  fact 
that  the  world  was  not  worthy  of  them.  The 
world  repudiated  as  unworthy  of  it  those  of 
whom  itself  was  not  worthy.  They  wan- 
dered {wandering)  in  deserts,  and  in 
mountains,  and  in  caves  and  clefts  of  the 
earth.  As  persons  of  whoin  the  world  was 
not  worthy,  God  withdrew  them  from  the 
world  to  solitary  sojourn.  These  statements 
were  eminently  true  of  the  Maccabean  times, 
when,  alike  for  leaders  and  followers,  deserts, 
mountains,  and  caves  were  common  places  of 
refuge;  but  the  author  has  more  probably 
in  view  the  Old  Testatnent  prophets;  as  Eli- 
jah, who  fled  from  the  rage  of  Jezebel  into  a 
cave  tif  Mount  Horeb,  and  who,  as  well  as  his 
successor  Elisha,  frequented  the  solitudes  of 
Carmel ;  the  hundred  prophets  whom  Obadiah 
concealed  by  fiifties  in  two  caves. 

The  author  here  breaks  off  his  enumeration, 
but  glances  back  for  a  gi^neral  summary.  All 
these  persons  received  their  attestation  through 
faith;  all  obtained  an  honorable  record.  It 
will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  cases  are  of 
the  widest  diversity,  and  there  seems  at  first 
view  almost  an  incongruity  in  bringing  cases 
so  utterly  unlike  as  the  heroic  sacrifices  of 
Abraham  and  Moses,  the  resolute  endurance 
of  the  Maccabean  martyrs,  the  life-long  wan- 
derings and  self-exile  of  patriarchs  and  proph- 
ets, into  connection  with  cases  such  as  that  of 
Jacob  blessing  the  sons  of  Joseph,  and  Joseph 
in  dying  giving  command  concerning  his 
bones,  or  Moses  by  faith  celebrating  the  i)ass- 
over.  But  si  deeper  glance  shows  us  that  they 
are  all  perfectly  congruous  with  each  other 


and  pertinent  illustrations  of  the  principle  the 
authi)r  is  exemplifying.  That  which  he  has 
undertaken  to  commemorate  is  faith — simple 
trust  in  invisible  realities,  in  the  being  and 
declaration  and  veracity  of  God.  To  this 
single  and  specific  object  he  is  entirely  ftiith- 
ful.  It  matters  not  what  external  form  of 
development  it  assumes,  whether  that  of  active 
courage,  of  passive  endunince,  of  sacrifice  of 
the  affections,  of  prophetic  utterance  on  the 
couch,  of  a  sacrificial  offering.  The  simple 
point  is  the  trust  in  God  which  the  act  ex- 
liibits;  the  rising  above  the  domain  of  sense 
into  that  of  spirit;  the  clear  perception,  the 
firm  conviction  of  spiritual  realities.  This 
may  be  as  fully  evinced  by  a  prophetic  utter- 
ance of  a  d3'ing  patriarch  as  by  the  warrior 
going  forth  to  encounter  death.  In  fad,  it 
may  imply  coinpleter  and  purer  faith  by  how 
much  human  and  earthly  elements  sire  less 
likely  to  mingle  with  it.  The  courage  which 
rushes  into  battle  may  derive  part  of  its  inspi- 
ration, even  in  the  son  of  faith,  from  human 
impulses  and  passions;  the  courage  that  plun- 
ges out  into  the  unknown  future,  that  diires 
unhesitating  to  predict  what,  yet  hidden  in  its 
womb,  no  sagacity  can  foresee  and  no  human 
power  bring  about,  is  matter  of  pure  and  tibso- 
lute  faith.  Thus  faith  is  contemplated  in  its 
single  character  of  restoring  the  sundered 
tie  between  the  soul  and  God,  of  recognizing 
his  being,  promise,  power,  and  veracity,  and 
the  more  practical  form  which  it  assumes  in 
legitimately  working  itself  out,  is  of  secondary 
importance. 

39.  And  these  all,  having  obtained 
{though  ohtnining)  a  good  report  through 
faith — the  concessive  participle  (fiaprvpTjefiTe?), 
though  being  attested,  emphatically  phiced. 
Received  not  the  (fulJiUment  of  the)  prom- 
ise. The  protnise  certainh'  they  received, 
and  believed,  but  their  faith  was  not  rewarded 
with  possession.  Ftir  down  the  ages  they 
caught  a  glimpse  of  the  glorious  inheritance, 
but  did  not  enter  into  it.  Abraham,  who  re- 
ceived the  promise  thtit  in  his  seed  all  nations 
should  be  blessed,  and  who  rejoiced  in  a  vision 
of  the  day  of  Christ,  yet  saw  but  dimly,  and 


164 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XL 


40  (iod  having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us,  I  40  God  having '  provided  some  better  thing  concerning 
that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect.  us,  that  apart  from  us  they  should  not  be  made  per- 

fect. 


1  Or,  foreteen. 


went  down  to  the  grave  in  faith.  Prophets 
and  kings  in  long  succession  desired  to  see  his 
day,  but  did  not  see  it.  The  Desire  of  the 
nations,  the  Light  that  was  to  enlighten  the 
nations  and  be  the  Glory  of  Israel,  did  not 
visit  them.  The  more  immediate  reference  is 
to  the  present  life.  They  lived  and  died  in 
the  hope,  but  not  the  possession,  of  the  spiritual 
blessings  vouchsafed  to  the  days  of  the  mani- 
fested Messiah  and  of  the  Better  Covenant. 

40.  God  having  provided  {providing) 
some  better  thing  for  {concerning)  us.  God 
withheld  from  them  his  highest  gift,  and  re- 
served it  for  us  of  the  Spiritual  Economy.  This 
is  put  encouragingly  and  comfortingly,  as  if 
God  looked  down  the  ages  and  had  such  re- 
gard for  us  of  the  later  time  that  he  held  back 
from  them  his  richest  gifts  that  they  and  we 
might  enter  into  perfection  together — a  gra- 
cious and  perfectly  legitimate  way  of  putting 
the  simple  truth  tliat  the  purposes  of  God  are 
developed  gradually;  that  he  does  not  bring 
humanity  at  a  bound  to  the  goal  of  its  hopes 
and  its  destinies;  and  that  the  inheritance  that 
former  ages  sighed  for  has  come  to  us  at  last. 

True,  these  blessings  are  in  a  measure  future 
to  us  as  well  as  to  them.  The  Sabbath  rest  of 
God,  the  spiritual  Canaan,  the  eternal  inherit- 
ance, are  ours  also,  still  in  hope.  But  with 
immense  differences  in  degree.  We  have  the 
image  (eiicioi')  where  they  had  the  shadow  (o-xta) 
of  the  heavenly  things.  We  have  the  mani- 
fested Saviour,  the  outpoured  Spirit,  the  full 
revelation.  John,  the  harbinger,  amid  the 
very  breaking  light  of  the  new  day,  and  more 
privileged  than  the  greatest  of  the  Old  Econ- 
omy, its  Davids  and  Isaiahs,  was  inferior  to 
the  humblest  of  the  New.  The  perfecting 
(T«Aenu(7ts)  that  was  to  come  with  the  Messiah 
is  still  indeed  in  the  future,  but  the  perception 
of  it  is  so  clear  and  the  foretaste  so  rich  that, 
compared  with  what  is  given,  almost  nothing 
seems  withheld. 


That  they  without  {apart  from)  us  may 
not  be  perfected.  They  and  we  are  together 
to  enter  perfection  ;  together  to  enter  the  Sab- 
bath rest  of  God,  and  sit  down  at  the  marriage 
supper  of  the  Lamb.  But  as  this  is  still  in  the 
future,  have  they  as  yet  received  no  benefit 
from  the  death  of  Christ?  Undoubtedly,  they 
have.  Whatever  was  their  place  and  condi- 
tion, they  could  not  but  await  anxiously  the 
development  of  the  promises  that  had  sus- 
tained and  cheered  them  on  earth.  They 
could  not  be  indifferent  spectators  of  the  grand 
drama  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Crucifixion, 
of  the  Resurrection  and  the  Ascension,  nor 
fail  to  realize  in  their  own  immediate  condition 
great  results  from  those  events.  All  Hades 
must  have  thrilled  with  the  great  fact  of  accom- 
plished redemption;  its  gates  sprang  back  on 
their  hinges,  and  its  righteous  occupants  rose 
into  a  hitherto  unknown  freedom  and  salva- 
tion. The  boundary  line  between  the  saints 
of  the  two  Dispensations  was  obliterated. 
Whatever  blessedness  belonged  "henceforth" 
to  the  dead  that  died  in  the  Lord,  belonged 
equally  to  their  Old  Testament  predecessors. 
It  is  among  the  prerogatives  of  Christian  be- 
lievers that  they  have  come  to  the  "heavenly 
Jerusalem,  and  to  the  spirits  of  the  just  made 
perfect."  This  must  point  to  a  different  state 
of  facts  from  what  had  existed  before.  An- 
cient men  of  God  had  died  and  gone  into 
Sheol,  to  the  spirits  of  the  just,  indeed,  but  not 
of  the  "just  made  perfect."  Now,  not  abso- 
lutely indeed,  they  are  still  relatively  per- 
fected. All  the  privileges  accorded  to  the 
New  Testament  believers  are  theirs.  They 
are  represented  bj'  the  elders  that  in  the  vision 
of  the  Apocalypse  encircle  the  throne  of  the 
Lamb.  They  dwell  in  the  heaven  of  the 
Saints,  and  with  all  the  believing  dead  will 
accompany  the  glorified  Son  of  man  in  his 
Second  Coming. 


Ch.  XII] 


HEBREWS. 


165 


CHAPTEK  XII. 


WHEREFORE,  seeing  we  also  are  compassed  about 
with  so  great  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  let  us  lay 
aside  every  weiglit,  aud  the  siu  which  doth  so  easily  be- 
set us,  and  let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  that  is  set 
before  us. 


1  Therefore  let  us  also,  seeing  we  are  compassed 
about  with  so  great  a  cloud  of  witutsses,  lay  aside 
I  every  weight,  and  the  sin  which  -doth  so  easily 
beset  us,  and  let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  that 


1  Or.  all  eumbrance i  Or,  doth  clotely  cling  to  ut.    Or,  it  admired  of  many. 


Ch.  12  :  (3)  Renewed  exhortation,  suggested 
chiefly  by  this  historical  survey.     (12  :  1-29.) 

(«)  Incitement  to  endurance  from  the  en- 
compas-sing  presence  of  this  host  of  witnesses, 
and  especially  of  Jesus,  their  Leader.     (1-3.) 

The  preceding  examples  of  faith  have  been 
intended,  as  they  were  eminently  calculated, 
to  inspire  with  fresh  courage  the  wavering 
Hebrew  believers.  This  grand  procession  of 
their  believing  ancestors,  passing  before  their 
eyes,  must  have  rekindled  their  expiring  en- 
thusiasm. The  example  of  those  old  heroes 
and  martyrs  must  have  been  as  a  trumpet  call 
to  the  spiritual  conflict.  Alike  what  they  did 
and  what  they  suffered  in  behalf  of  the  truth, 
and  in  confidence  in  unseen  realities,  might^ 
strengthen  the  feeble  disciples.  The  apostle 
proceeds,  however,  to  a  direct  personal  appli- 
cation. 

1.  Wherefore,  etc.,  therefore  (emphatic 
deduction :  totyapoiv,  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament  only  in  1  Thess.  4  :  8)  let  us  also 
(as  well  as  they),  having  encompassing  us  so 
great  a  cloud  of  witnesses.  The  author  now 
transfers  his  readers  to  a  Grecian  race  course, 
along  whose  sides  are  grouped  as  spectators 
the  whole  long  line  of  distinguished  confessors 
and  champions  of  the  faith,  whom  he  has  just 
enumerated.  Instead  of  coldly  appealing  to 
the  memory  and  the  reason,  he  by  a  magic 
sweep  of  his  pen  brings  the  whole  body  of 
them  around  his  readers,  and  thus  brings  to 
bear  upon  them  not  only  the  force  of  their 
example,  but  of  their  ideal  presence.  They 
are  exhorted  to  fidelity,  not  only  by  the  remem- 
brance of  these  illustrious  heroes  of  faith,  but 
also  by  the  consciousness  that  they  themselves 
are  acting  in  the  immediate  presence  and  under 
the  eye  of  the  men  who  have  wrought  these 
deeds.  Nor  is  this  in  mere  figure.  From  their 
home  in  the  clouds,  from  their  heavenly  rest, 
they  are  actually  bending  down  to  behold  us. 


Witness  (jiopTu?)  is  therefore  to  be  taken  here 
apparently  in  both  senses;  namely,  that  of 
witnesses  to  the  faith,  and  witnesses,  specta- 
tors of  those  who  have  now  succeeded  to  their 
struggles.  That  the  word  will  easily  bear 
either  signification  is  certain,  and  it  seems 
hardly  doubtful  that  by  a  sort  of  usus  preg- 
nans  the  author  has  them  both  in  mind  here. 
Lay  aside  every  weight  {6yKov,  hulk,  inflating 
pride) ;  here,  however,  not  probably  taken  in 
the  latter  ethical  significance,  as  by  Bengel, 
but  every  bulky  encumbrance,  everything 
that  impedes  the  lightness  and  fleetness  of  our 
movements,  as  all  burdens  of  Jewish  and  legal 
observances,  all  that  obstructs  the  free  spirit 
and  action  of  the  gospel.  And  the  sin  which 
doth  so  easily  beset  us — the  easily  encotn- 
passitig sin — (cOTr€pio-TaToi',easilj' standing  round, 
readily  encompassing  and  besetting  our  way)  in 
the  sense  probably  intended  by  the  '  beset'  of 
the  Common  Version  ;  ready  at  any  moment  to 
spring  upon  us  and  arrest  us  in  or  draw  us 
from  our  course.  This  seems,  on  the  whole,  t?he 
most  natural  and  easy  of  all  the  manifold 
meanings  which  have  been  put  upon  this  word. 
It  is  adapted  to  the  figure  of  the  runner  who 
is  able  to  be  enconvpassed,  clung  to,  set  upon 
at  every  moment  by  sin,  that  lurks  by  his  side 
or  lies  crouched  in  his  path.  '  Sin '  is  probably 
here  as  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle  conceived  in 
the  form  of  'unbelief,'  which  shows  itself  in 
departing,  falling  away,  from  the  living  God. 
It  was  this  unbelief  and  attendant  disobedience 
by  which  sin  deceived  and  slew  our  first  parents, 
causing  their  apostasy  from  God  ;  it  was  this, 
"  the  deceitfulness  of  sin,"  which  destroyed  the 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness;  it  is  the  opposite 
of  this  which  in  the  form  of  faith  draws  the 
soul  back  to  God;  and  it  is  this  malignant, 
deceitful,  ever-active  principle  that  the  Chris- 
tian athlete  is  to  regard  as  specially  impeding 
his  course.*    And  let  us  run,  etc.,  let  ua  in. 


'  Einrtpia-Tarov  (except  in  passages  in  Chrysostora  re-  I  and  the  connection.  From  the  active  vepu<rTavai  lo 
ferring  to  this  Epistle)  is  found  nowhere  but  here,  and  hrinrj  rourid,  to  trnnx/orm, it  luinht  be  ensi/;/  lynnsforming 
we  are  thrown  back  for  its  meaning  on  its  etymology    us,  but  in  no  very  appropriate  sense.     From  middle 


166 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


2  Looking  unto  Jesus  the  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faiili ;  wlio  for  the  joy  ihat  was  set  belore  him  endured 
the  cross,  Uespising  the  shame,  anu  is  set  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  tnrone  of  God. 


2  is  set  before  us,  looking  unto  Jesus  the  i  author  and 
perfecter  of  our  faith,  who  for  the  joy  thai  was  set 
belore  liini  endured  the  cross,  despising  shame,  and 
liath  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 


1  Or,  captain. 


patient  endurance  rim  the  race  (literally,  the 
struggle,  the  contest)  that  lies  before  us  A 

2.  Looking  unto,  looking  aviay  from  our- 
selves, to  the  Leader  and  Perfecter  of  our 
faith,  Jesus.  Nut  '  author  and  finisher,'  as  one 
that  originally  produces  fuith  in  us,  and  then 
brings  it  to  perfection.  'Leader'  (ipxwos)  is 
our  Conductor,  the  one  who  has  preceded  us 
on  the  path  of  faith,  the  great  Captain  of  our 
faith  as  he  is  the  Captain  of  salvation.  Keeping 
in  view  the  autlior's  definition  of  faith,  con- 
fidence in  anticipated  and  unseen  good,  and 
readiness  to  sacrifice  all  for  this,  the  meaning 
becomes  perfectly  clear.  Christ  led  the  way 
for  his  people,  he  set  the  great  example  of  this 
clear-sighted  faith.  In  view  of  the  promised 
reward,  of  the  spiritual  seed  that  was  to  be 
given  him  ("Thine  they  were  and  thou 
gavest  them  me,"  etc. :  read  the  whole  of  John 
17),  he  renounced  the  heavenly  glory,  he 
did  not  consider  even  his  equality  with  God  a 
thing  to  be  violently  seized  upon  (but  rather, 
as  it  were,  earned  by  sacrifice  and  suffer- 
ing), and  yielded  himself  up  with  unshrinking 
and  unwavering  fidelity  to  obedience,  tempta- 
tion, toil,  and  death.  He  thus  is  the  Captain, 
the  Pioneer,  the  great  Leader  of  his  people 
on  this  path  of  faith.  And  as  he  is  the  Leader 
in  this  career  of  faith,  so  he  is  its  Perfecter. 
As  he  sets  to  his  people  the  great  example  of 
faith,  and  puts  them  on  the  path,  so  he  brings 
them  to  the  goal.  As  he  leads  his  people  into 
the  trials  and  conflicts  of  faith,  so  he  leads 
them  out  into  its  victory  and  rewards.  As  he 
entered  the  perilous  and  toilsome  path  to  be 
followed  by  his  people,  so  he  emerges  from  it 
into  triumph  and  glory  for  a  like  result  to 
them.      Perfected   himself,   he    becomes    the 


Author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  that  obey 
him.  He  is  the  Perfecter  of  our  faith  as  he 
leads  it  to  the  enjoyment  of  its  objects.  The 
two  terms  'Leader'  and  'Perfecter'  are  ex- 
plained in  the  two  following  clauses. 

Who  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him 
endured  the  (a)  cross,  AesT^i^in^  {disregard- 
ing) the  shame.  Here,  tiien,  was  the  grand  ex- 
emplification of  that  principle  which  Moses  ex- 
emplified in  an  humbler  way,  of  submitting  to 
present  sacrifice  and  suffering  in  view  of  future 
good.  Christ  submitted  even  to  a  cross  (the 
absence  of  the  article  turns  attention  from  the 
individual  thing  to  the  kind,  such  a  thing  as  a 
cross),  making  light  of  the  shame,  and  all  in 
view,  like  Moses,  of  the  recompense  of  reward, 
the  joy  that  was  proposed  to  him  in  the  salva- 
tion of  a  purified  and  grateful  people,  and 
here,  perhaps,  more  particularly  in  his  exalta- 
tion at  the  right  hand  of  God.  The  prospect 
of  the  reward  bore  him  up  in  all  his  depths  of 
agony.  Some  translate,  ''''instead  of  the  joy 
set  before  him" — that  is,  instead  of  the  con- 
tinued joy  which  lay  before  him  as  dwelling 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father ;  but  this,  although 
easily  found  in  the  words,  is  less  in  harmony 
with  the  writer's  purpose.  '  For'  (avri)  is  here 
'in  exchange  for,'  as  'a  compensation  for,'  as 
'the  price  of.'  He  was  willing  to  pay  the 
price  of  his  humiliation  and  sufferings  for  the 
glor3' that  was  in  reserve  (2:9);  "on  account 
of  the  suffering  of  death  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor."  And  is  set  down  (hath  taken 
his  seat)  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne 
of  God.  This  was  the  joy  set  before  him,  the 
reward  and  crown  of  his  sufferings.  In  this 
he  was  'perfected'  himself,  and  in  this  too  he 
became  the  Perfecter  of  the  faith  and  hope  of 


irfpiio-Tacrfiai  to  transform  onew//,  it  might  be,  as  Matthai 
explains  here,  changeable,  inconstant,  equivalent  to 
fvixtTaKivriTov  :  but  this  meaning  also  is  here  not  very 
appropriate.  The  kindred  words  irepiaraTo^,  anepiara- 
To?,  (vKaTaaraToi,  generally  have  a  passive  or  middle 
signification,  surrounded,  or  slandinc/ ronnd,  ivell  consti- 
tuted, easily  chnnrifd,  etc.  Euir6pi(TTaTo?,  then,  might  be 
easily  stood  nro«j?rf,  equivalent  to  avoided,  shunned,  and 
so  here  Chrysostom;  or  possibly,  easily,  gladly  stood 
around,  equivalent  to  universally  loved,  prized,  as  Kr- 
nesti :   or  (middle)  easily,  standing  round,  erwompassing. 


and  this  either  as  a  garment  which  clings  to  us  and  im- 
pedes our  way,  as  De  Wette,  Lunemann.etc,  or  (as  Valck- 
naer,  Delitzsch,  Ebrard,)  lurking  round  us,  ready  to  beset, 
entangle,  ensnare  us.  This  meaning  we  have  adopted 
above,  as  on  the  whole  most  probable. 

1  The  special  ayuiv^  however,  here  as  in  1  Cor.  9  :  25, 
being  the  race  (Sp6;iio«).  tpex^iv  Spo/jiov,  'to  run  a 
race,'  would  be  more  natural  than  Tpe'xeii'  ayojya  ;  the 
latter,  however,  is  uot  harsh ;  English,  to  run  in  the 
content. 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS 


167 


3  For  consider  him  that  endured  such  contradiction 
of  sinners  against  himself,  lest  ye  be  wearied  and  laini 
in  your  luinds. 

4  Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto  blood,  striving 
against  sin. 


3  God.      For  consider  him  who  hath  endured  such 
gainsaying  of  sinners  against  '  him.-elf,  tliat  ye  wax 

4  uut  weary,  laiutiug  in  yuur  souls.     \u  have  nut  yet 


1  Uanr  ancieuc  autboritie>  read  thenuelve*. 


his  people.  His  exaltation  had  no  selfish  end, 
but  stood  inseparably  coupled,  as  did  his  humil- 
iation, with  the  exaltation  of  humanity.  It  is 
clear,  then,  wiiy  we  should  look  away  to 
him  who,  as  the  Leader  of  our  faith,  en- 
tered before  and  for  us  on  his  path  of  believ- 
ing obedience  and  suflering,  and  as  its  Per- 
fecter,  perfected  himself,  has  taken  his  seat 
at  the  right  hand  of  God  to  give  eternal 
redemption  to  all  who  follow  in  his  path  of 
faith  and  suffering. 

3.  For  consider  him  that  (Aa^A)  endured 
such  contradiction  (gamsaying)  of  sinners 
against  himself,  that  ye  may  not  wenry, 
fainting  in  your  souls.  The  construction  is 
equivalent  to,  '  for  considering  him,  ye  will  not 
faint,'  etc.,  again  equivalent  to,  '  considering 
the  gainsaying  of  sinners  which  he  endured,  ye 
will  not,'  etc.  The  thought,  however,  receives 
depth  and  vitality  from  the  personality  of  the 
Lord.  It  is  not  the  abstract  suffering,  but  the 
concrete  sufferer  that  is  to  stimulate  and  sus- 
tain us.  'Gainsaying'  'contradiction'  (ovti- 
Xoyia)  doubtless  here  stands  as  the  representa- 
tive (as  taken  by  the  Greek  interpreters)  of  all 
the  varied  forms  of  opposition  and  hostility 
which  our  Lord  encountered.  The  word,  says 
Delitzsch,  precedes  and  represents  the  act. 
Our  Lord  was  charged  as  a  revolutionist  be- 
cause he,  as  was  alleged  (John  i9: 12)^  "speaketh 
against  CiEsar"  (dfTiAeyEiTu  Kmo-opt).  He  himself 
was  to  be  (Luke 2: 34)  "a  sign  spoken  against  " 
{ar\ii.€lov  avTiktyoii-ivov),  an  expression  evidently 
summing  up  all  forms  of  hostility.  In  '  faint- 
ing,' '  becoming  relaxed  '  («<cXuo/iei'ot),  we  have 
still  the  figure  of  the  race. 

(A)  Their  afflictions  the  fruits  of  God's  chas- 
tening love.     (4-11.) 

4.  Ye  have  not  yet,  not  yet  have  ye  with- 
stood unto  blood,  contending  against  sin. 
There  seems  here  a  transition  from  running  to 
boxing,  as  in  1  Cor.  9:  24-27.  "running  (so 
7-un  I)  and  boxing  (so  box  I,  not  as  Common 
Version  'so  fight  I')  are  coupled  together." 
'  Sin '  is  here  represented  as  an  opponent  in 
boxing,  to  whom  resistance  must  be  made,  if 
necessary,   even  unto  blood.      In  this,   says 


Delitzsch,  there  is  no  charge  upon  them  that 
they  have  not  offered  all  needed  resistance,  but 
that  the  pressure  of  sin  upon  them  has  not  yet 
been  such  as  to  demand  the  extreme  of  resist- 
ance :  it  is  only  implied  that  they  have  not  yet 
been  called  to  the  supreme  trial  of  faith.  But 
does  not  the  connection  with  what  follows, 
"and  ye  have  forgotten,"'  imply  a  censure, 
and  lead  us  to  suppose  that  in  this  precisely 
the  author  blames  them;  namely,  that  they 
have  not  resisted  unto  blood,  struggling  against 
sin?  Had  he  said:  'struggling  against  sin- 
ners,' the  case  would  have  been  different. 
They  could  not  be  required  to  shed  their  blood 
under  persecution  until  persecution  arose. 
But  in  the  contest  with  sin  it  is  otherwise. 
They  were  bound  to  contend  against  it  unto 
blood  rather  than  yield  ;  and  as  these  Hebrew 
Christians  had  yielded,  had  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  driven  to  the  very  point  of  apos- 
tasy— the  sin  of  sins — the  presumption  is  that 
their  failure  to  resist  unto  blood  was  charged 
on  them  as  a  crime.  As  a  mere  intimation  of 
a  privilege — of  their  exemption  thus  far  from 
bloody  persecution — the  passage  seems  wholly 
out  of  place,  and  its  connection  with  ver.  5 
most  unnatural.  I  therefore  believe,  with 
Liinemann,  that  the  'sin'  which  they  had  not 
as  yet  resisted  unto  blood  was  the  internal 
temptation  to  apostasy:  that  the  'unto  blood  ' 
is  to  be  taken  figuratively,  markingtheirfailure 
to  make  the  extreme  and  desperate  resistance 
which  they  ought  against  its  might;  and  con- 
sidering the  immediate  connection  with  our 
Lord,  I  think  there  is  a  reference  to  his  bloody 
sweat  intheGarden,  inhisagonyofresistanceto 
the  violent  assaults  of  temptation.  This  would 
give  the  passage  a  peculiar  force  and  tender- 
ness :  but  if  we  do  not  adopt  this,  there  is  at 
least  no  difficulty  in  taking  the  '  unto  blood  ' 
figuratively  of  the  utmost  extremity  of  spir- 
itual resistance:  and  indeed  to  mix  up  real 
bloodshed  with  figurative  running  and  boxing 
is  most  unnatural.  In  every  point  of  view  it 
is  better  to  take  it  figurativelj' :  and  hence  all 
the  questions  about  the  Hebrews  of  Palestine, 
or  Rome,  or  Alexandria,  having  or  not  having 


168 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIL 


5  And  ye  have  forgotten  the  exhortation  which  speak- 
eth  unto  you  as  unto  children.  My  .'-on,  despise  not 
Ihou  the  chastening  of  the  Lord,  nor  faint  when  thou 
art.  rebuked  of  him : 

6  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth,  and 
scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth. 

7  If  ye  endured  chastening,  God  dealeth  with  you  as 
with  sous;  for  what  son  is  he  whom  the  father  chasten- 
eth not? 


5  resisted  unto  blood,  striving  against  sin:  and  ye 
have  forgotten  the  exhortation,  which  reasoneth 
with  you  as  with  sons, 

My  son,  regard  not  lightly  the  chastening  of  the 

Lord, 
Nor  faint  when  thou  art  reproved  of  him ; 

6  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth, 

And   scourgeth  every  son  whom   lie  receiveth. 

7  'It  is  for  ch;istening  that  ye  endure;  God  dealeth 
with  you  as  with  sous;  for  what  son  is  there  whom 


1  Or,  Bndure  unto  chastening. 


suffered  bloody  persecution  become  quite  irrel- 
evant to  this  passage.  It  has  to  do  with  an- 
other matter,  the  Christian  combatant's  strug- 
gle against  sin,  even  unto  blood. 

5.  And  ye  have  forgotten  the  exhorta- 
tion  which  holds  converse  with  you  as  sons. 
Many  interpreters  read  this  as  a  question; 
and  even  Delitzsch,  while  not  forinally, 
yet  does  so  virtually.  This  is  almost  neces- 
sary, so  long  as  we  take  the  preceding  verse  as 
a  mere  declaration  that  the  Hebrew  Christians 
had  not  as  yet  Oeen  called  to  assert  their  fidelity 
by  their  blood  ;  for  the  incongruousness  of 
coupling  this  with  a  strong  declaration  of 
censure,  'and  ye  have  forgotten,'  is  obvious. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  connect  it  as  a 
question  with  the  preceding  declaration,  is 
intolerably  harsh.  The  explanation  above 
given  removes  all  the  difficulty.  They  have 
failed  of  that  last  and  extreme  resistance  which 
they  ought  to  have  made  to  sin;  they  have 
allowed  themselves  to  relax  and  faint(€(cAu'€o-9ai); 
and  have  forgotten  the  exhortation,  etc.  All 
is  easy  and  natural,  both  in  thought  and  ex- 
pression ;  and  the  thought  suggested  by  the 
'fainting,  relaxing  yourselves'  {ixXvoufvoi),  is 
naturally  carried  out ;  and,  indeed,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  quotation  following  was 
suggested  by  its  containing  the  word  for  'nor 
faint,  be  relaxed'  in  soul  when  reproved 
(«Aue<r9ai).  My  son,  despise  not  {make 
not  light  of)  the  chastening  of  the  Lord. 
(Prov.  3: 11, 12.)  The  declaration  here  made  in 
Proverbs  maj'  point  back  to  the  Book  of  Job; 
at  all  events,  we  have  in  that  book  a  striking 
example  of  paternal  chastisement — chastise- 
ment outvvardlj'  severe,  but  intended  in  love, 
and  working  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  as  it 
causes  the  virtues  of  a  pious  character  to  shine 
out  with  augmented  lustre.  Chastening 
(irotSeio)  here,  evidently,  that  form  of  disci- 
pline which  consists  in  chastisement.  To  this 
chastisement  these  Christians  had  been  more 


or  less  subject;  that  they  had  endured  out- 
ward persecution  is  not  denied  nor  improb- 
able ;  but  whatever  it  was,  whether  open 
persecution,  or  the  seductive  temptations  of 
Judaism,  and  perhaps  reproach,  they  had 
failed  to  meet  it  firmly,  and  very  nearly  given 
waj'  to  apostasy.  This  is  clearly  implied  in 
ver.  12,  which  fully  confirms  our  view.  There 
is  no  need  of  the  interrogative  form,  in  order 
to  soften  the  language;  the  author  does  not 
intend  to  soften  it  here  more  than  elsewhere 
in  the  severe,  and  even  terrible,  rebukes  scat- 
tered through  the  Epistle.  Nor  faint  (ckAuou) 
— relax  thyself,  give  up  the  tension  of  endeavor 
and  struggle,  and  abandon  all  resistance ;  a 
clear  allusion  to  ver.  3 — when  thou  art  re- 
buked {corrected,  iX(yx6)x(voi;) ,  probed,  sifted, 
convicted ;  and  thus  shewn  tip  to  oneself,  com- 
monly in  classical  Greek,  by  searching  words 
and  arguments  ;  here,  by  searching  providen- 
tial inflictions. 

6.  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chas- 
teneth. Emphasis  on  '  loveth.'  Chastisement 
is  a  mark  of  love.  The  withholding  of  cor- 
rective discipline  marks  abandonment  of  God. 
"He  is  joined  to  his  idols;  let  him  alone." 
And  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  re- 
ceiveth (accepteth) — as  his  own,  in  whom  he 
has  pleasure.  ,  The  scourging  is  not  the  scourg- 
ing of  punishment,  but  of  discipline;  not  the 
token  of  judicial  wrath,  but  of  correcting  love. 
The  author  gently  says  that  the  Hebrews  had 
forgotten  so  to  take  the  discipline  to  which 
they  had  been  subjected,  and  receiving  it  as 
if  it  came  in  wrath,  not  in  love,  had  sunk 
under  it.  In  stating  plainly  the  fact,  he  yet 
displays  his  usual  tenderness  in  treating  le- 
niently its  cause.  They  h&di  forgotten  the  ex- 
hortation. 

7.  Application  of  the  preceding  citation. 
For  if  ye  endure  chastening.  Emphasis 
on  'chastening,'  not  on  'endure' — referring 
to  what  they  endure,  not  the  mode  of  enduring 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


169 


8  But  if  ye  be  without  chastisement,  whereof  all  are 
partakers,  then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons. 

9  Furthermore,  we  have  had  fathers  of  our  flesh 
which  corrected  ua,  and  we  gave /Afm  reverence:  shall 
we  not  much  rather  be  iu  subjection  unto  the  Father 
of  spirits,  and  live? 

10  For  they  verily  for  a  few  days  chastened  tts  after 


8  kis  father  chasteneth  not?  But  if  ye  are  without 
chastening,  whereof  all  have  been  made  partakers, 

9  then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons.  Furthermore, 
we  had  the  fathers  of  our  flesh  to  chasten  us,  and  we 
gave  them  reverence:  shall  we  not  much  rather  be 
in  subjection  unto  the  Father  of  'spirits,  and  live? 

10  For  they   verily   for  a  few  days  chastened  us  as 


1  Or,  our  tpirits. 


it.^     God  dealeth  with  you  as  w-ith  sons 

— more  exactly,  '^  As  toward  sons,  God  beareth 
himself  toward  you.'  For  what  son  is  he 
whom  the  («)  father  chasteneth  not? — 

that  is,  Who  can  be  properly  called  a  son 
whom  a  father,  etc.  ?  Others  (as  Bleek,  De 
Wotte,  Tholuck,  Liinemann),  "For  what  son 
is  there  whom  a  father  chasteneth  not?  "  with 
substantially  the  same  sense,  but  the  construc- 
tion less  forcible  and  less  elegant.  The  article 
is  designedly  omitted,  both  with  '  son  '  (vidt) 
and  'fatht-r' (iraTijp).  The  sentiment  is  obvious. 
It  assumes  the  fact  that  ours  is  a  world  of  im- 
perfection and  sin,  and  the  grand  law  that 
character  is  developed  and  virtues  are  born  in 

trial.       (I  Peter  1  :  6,  7  ;  James  1  :  2,  :i.) 

8.  But  (or,  and,  fie,  slightly  disjunctive)  if 
ye  be  without  chastisement — of  tvhich  all 
have  become  partakers ;  which  all  the  pious 
of  former  ages  have  been  called  to  share,  and 
in  which  their  graces  have  been  developed — 
then  (ipa,  so  then,  particle  of  inference;  but, 
in  the  classics,  never  standing  tirst,  as  here),  as 
the  logical  consequence  from  the  preceding — 
are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons — illegitim,ate, 
not  genuine  and  acknowledged  children.  Ye 
lack  one  necessary  condition  and  token  of 
the  filial  character.  In  granting  temporal, 
God  withholds  spiritual,  prosperity.  In  leav- 
ing you  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  j-our  portion 
here,  he  shows  that  he  has  no  portion  in  re- 
serve for  you  hereafter.  The  ore  that  is  not 
worth  refining  is  not  worth  preserving.  See 
Luke  16  :  2^5,  "  Thou  in  thy  lifetime  receivedst 
thy  good  things,  and  similarly  Lazarus  evil 
things;  and  now  he  is  comforted,  but  thou  art 
tormented." 

9.  We  have  had  fathers,  etc.— Then  while 


the  fathers  of  our  flesh  (our  fleshly  fathers) 
we  had  as  chasteners,  and  gave  thetn  rever- 
ence, shall  we  not  much  rather  be  subject  to 
the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and  live  9  I  take 
the  'then'  (iira),  with  the  old  commentators, 
as  introducing  a  question  of  surprise  and  dis- 
pleasure, as  theti  is  not  infrequently  used  in 
English.  Then  did  we  do  this,  and  shall  we 
not  do  that?  So  the  particle  is  familiarly 
used  in  the  classics,  and  so  may  it  naturally 
be  in  this  Epistle,  which  in  so  many  instances 
employs  the  elegant  classical  constructions.* 
God  is  here  called  the  "  Father  of  our  spirits," 
as  contrasted  with  "fathers  of  our  flesh."  The 
passage  probably  involves  no  special  teaching 
respecting  the  origin  of  spirits.  Physiolog- 
ically, probably  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
man  is  father  of  the  body  he  is  father  of  the 
soul ;  our  entire  humanity  descends  by  propa- 
gation. But  man  is  the  father  of  our  flesh,  as 
his  discipline  reaches  mainly  our  outward  and 
temporal  interests.  God  is  the  Father  of  our 
spirits,  as  his  care  extends  to,  and  his  power 
quickens,  our  spiritual  natures.  The  reasons, 
then,  for  acquiescing  in  and  profiting  by  the 
discipline  of  our  Heavenly  Father,  are  incom- 
parably stronger  than  those  for  a  like  submis- 
sion to  that  of  our  fleshly  parents.  'We  had.' 
He  is  addressing  men  and  women  once  subject 
to  human  parents,  but  subject  to  them  no 
longer. 

10.  For  they — They  indeed  were  chastening 
us  for  a  few  days,  '  with  reference  to'  (wpo?)  a 
few  days — the  brief  period  of  our  earthly  life; 
or,  perhaps,  only  for  the  few  days  during 
which  their  discipline  lasted  (in  which  case 
we  may,  with  Delitzsch,  give  to  npo^  a  double 
reference  to  time   and  purpose,  'for  a  few 


1  Many  editors  (as  already  Chrysostom)  read  fU 
iraiSctaM,  instead  of  ei  Ttai&dav  •=  perhaps,  endure  for 
the  purpose  of  discipline,  endure  in  accordance  with, 
and  as  matter  of,  discipline — but  very  harsh. 

2To  the  objection  that  in  that  case  the  answering 
clause  should  have  been  <t<il  o»  or  ou  6e  n-oAu  niKKov, 
"  and  sliall  we  not  much  rather,"  it  is  sufficient  to  reply 


that  the  ixiv  (tiro  tou?  fiiv)  shows  sufficiently  that  such 
a  construction  was  actually  in  the  writer's  mind,  but 
that  he  accidentally,  or  carelessly,  abandoned  it.  We 
may  properly  construct  ti-ra  according  to  what  was 
obviously  the  intended  construction.  The  other  ren- 
dering ofciTa  (ftirthemwre,  in  Ihe.  nerl  jihtce)  may  be  the 
true  one,  but  it  is  comparatively  weak  and  inelegant.    ■ 


170 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


their  own  pk'asure;  but  he  foroj(;'  profit,  that  we  might 
be  prrtakers  of  his  holiness. 

U  Now  uo  chastening  for  the  present  seeiueth  to  be 
joyous,  but  griovous:  nevertheless,  afterward  it  yield- 
eth  the  peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness  unto  them 
which  are  exercised  thereby. 

12  Wherefore  lift  up  the  hands  which  hang  down, 
and  the  feeble  knees; 


seemed  good  to  them:  but  he  for  our  profit,  that  ue 

11  may  be  partakers  of  his  holiness.  All  chastening 
seemeth  for  the  present  to  be  not  j(jy<ius,  but 
grievous  :  yet  afterward  it  yieldeth  peaceable  fruit 
unto  them  that,  have  been  exercised  thereby,  even 

12  Ihe  fruit  of  righteousness.     Wherefore  i  lift  up  the 


1  Gr.  make  straight. 


days,'  and,  ''with  reference  to  a  few  days'). 
Thus  tlicir  discipline  is  confined,  as  such, 
within  the  limits  and  interests  of  this  earthly 
life.  Except  as  coupled  with  and  subordinate 
to  divine  discipline,  it  cannot  reach  bej-ond 
that.  And  it  has  another  limitation  :  These 
earthly  parents  chastised  us  according  to  their 
ov^npleasure — better,  'according  to  that  which 
seemed  good  to  thetn.'  Human  discipline  is, 
at  best,  in  a  measure,  and  especially  as  con- 
trasted with  the  divine,  arbitrary  and  capri- 
cious. Neither  the  knowledge  nor  the  moral 
state  of  an  earthly  parent,  regarded  as  an 
earthly  parent, — and  so  soon  as  we  regard 
liim  ill  a  higher  light,  his  discipline  takes  its 
sanction  and  coloring  from  the  divine, — ena- 
bles him  to  rise  into  pure  and  enlightened 
regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  child.  More  or 
less  of  earthly  passion  vitiates  the  best  human 
chastisement. 

But  he  for  our  profit,  that  we  might  be 
partakers  (partake)  of  his  holiness.  These 
two  clauses  relate  chiasticaUy  to  the  two  i)re- 
ceding.  They  chastise  at  their  pleasure,  arbi- 
trarily and  capriciously ;  he  purely  for  our 
profit,  and  with  no  alloy  of  evil  passion. 
They,  again,  chastise  us  for  our  temporal, 
fleshly  interests;  he,  that  we  may  become 
partakers  of  his  holiness,  and  thus  may  secure 
spiritual  and  eternal  good.  We  need  not, 
then,  and  ought  not  (with  Liinemann)  to  refer 
'for  a  few  days'  to  both  parents,  our  earthly 
and  heavenly.  The  discipline  of  our  earthly 
parents  has  respect,  properly,  to  but  a  few 
days;  it  comprehends  in  itself  no  vital  and 
permanent  interests — that  of  God  being  de- 
signed to  bring  us  to  participate  in  his  purity, 
has,  thus,  reference  to  our  everlasting  welfare. 

11.  Now  no  chastisement— literally,  all 
chastisement  (not,  alike  that  of  God  and  of 
man,  of  our  heavenly  and  our  earthly  parents; 
the  comparison  with  our  earthly  parents  is  fin- 
ished, and  the  reference  is  exclusively  to  the 
discipline  of  our  Heavenly  Father.  It  refers 
to  his  chastisement  in  every  form  in  which  it 


may  come)  seemeth,  for  the  present  indeed,  to 
be  matter  not  of  joy,  but  of  pain.  In  itself, 
and,  therefore,  in  its  immediate  consequences, 
chastisement  is  not  agreeable,  but  painful. 
Yet  afterward  (in  its  ultimate  effects)  it 
yieldeth  (a7ro6i6uio-i,  renders  back,  pays  in  re- 
quital, like  the  earth  rendering  back  tiie 
rewards  of  tillage)  to  them  t)iat  have  been, 
disci2Jlined  by  it.  Trained,  disciplined  (ytyvy.- 
vacrixivoii)  by  exercise  and  conflict.  The  word 
the  same  as  5  :  14,  "who  have  their  perceptions 
exercised"  or  disciplined.  Here,  however,  the 
discipline  is  of  sterner  character.  There  it  is 
a  discipline  of  exercise  and  use  ;  here  of  strug- 
gle and  conflict.  And  the  fruit  produced  by 
this  discipline  is  through  the  grace,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  benevolent  purpose,  of 
God.  The  peaceable — a  peaceable  fruit  of 
righteousness.  It  is  'a  fruit  of  righteousness' 
through  the  gradual  overcoming  of  evil,  and 
the  purification  of  the  lietirt;  &  peaceful  frmi, 
as  against  the  struggles  and  griefs  of  the  period 
of  chastisement,  and  the  still  stormier  commo- 
tion of  the  reign  of  sin.  It  produces  early  an 
incipient  inward  peace,  and  by-and-by,  sub- 
duing every  conflicting  iind  disorderly  ele- 
ment, brings  one  into  perfect  peace — "tlie 
peace  of  God,  which  passeth  understanding." 

(c)  They  are  to  resist  firmly  all  relaxing 
tendencies  by  cultivating  unity,  purity,  and 
constant  watchfulness.     (12-17.) 

12.  Tlie  preceding  delineation  of  the  nature 
and  excellence  of  divine  chastisement  is  in 
the  author's  highest  style  of  elegance  and  dig- 
nity. The  selection  of  words  is  remarkably 
felicitous,  and  the  sentences  are  harmoniously 
balanced.  It  is  a  sort  of  '  rhetorical  common- 
place' on  the  nature  of  chastisement  in  the 
finest  style  of  rhetoric,  while  it  is  perfectly 
(ilear,  from  its  being  so  elaborately  carried  out, 
that  the  persons  in  mind  had  been  iicavily 
chastened,  and  from  ver.  4,  5,  and  12  that  as 
yet  this  chastening  had  not  wrought  in  them 
its  legitimate  eifects.  They  had  not  nerved 
themselves  up  in  the  arena  of  conflict,  but 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


171 


13  And  make  straight  paths  for  your  feet^  lest  that     13  bands  that  hang  down,  and  the  palsiid  knees;  and 

niake  straight  paths  for  your  feet,  that  that  which 
is  laiue  be  not '  turned  oui  ol  llie  way,  bui  rather  be 


■which   is  lame  be  turned'  out  of  the  way  ;  but  let  it 
rather  be  healed. 

14  Follow  geace  with  all  men,  and  holiness,  without 
which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord: 


healed. 

14      Follow  after  peace  with  all  men,  and  the  sanctifi- 
catiou  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord: 


1  Or,  put  out  0/  joint. 


suffered  themselves  to  become  faint,  relaxed, 
exhausted.  They  needed  tliis  eloquent  and 
forcible  presentation  of  tlie  nature  and  pur- 
pose of  divine  chastisement,  and  tlie  forcible 
exhortation  whioli  follows. 

Wherefore  (in  view  of  the  fact  that  trial 
and  discipline  are  but  modes  of  parental  love) 
lift  up  the  hands  which  hang  down  {have 
becatne  enfeebled),  and  the  knees  that  have  be- 
come relaxed— stWl  carrying  forward  the  figure 
of  the  race,  or  the  agonistic  struggle,  and 
quoting  freely  from  the  lofty  strains  of  Isaiah 
(35:3)j  whose  language  harmonizes  with  the 
elevated  diction  of  the  author.  "The  whole 
twelfth  verse,"  saj's  Delitzsch,  "is  a  long- 
continued  trumpet  blast,"  and  the  elegant  flow 
of  the  previous  diction,  and  finally  the  lofty 
character  of  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  culmi- 
nates in  a  fine  dactylic  line  which  very  prob- 
ably exemplifies  the  inspiration  that  spontane- 
ously and  almost  unconsciously  swells  into  the 
cadence  of  song.' 

13.  Rendered  simply  into  plain  English,  it 
runs:  And  make  straight  paths  for  your 
feet.  So  better  than  "  with  your  feet "  (ashy 
many  commentators),  as  there  is  no  special 
relation  between  the  tracks  of  the  feet  and  the 
straight  or  level  paths,  and  this  added  clause 
becomes  in  fact  a  mere  superfluity;  for  pro- 
vided the  paths  be  made  straight,  it  can  be  of 
no  sort  of  consequence  ivith  what  they  are 
made  so.  To  make  straight  paths  for  their 
feet,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  thought  entirely 
pertinent  and  natural,  harmonizing  perfectly 
wiih  what  follows. 

Lest — that  what  is  lame  may  not  be  turned 


out  of  the  way ;  not  'dislocated,'  or  put  com- 
pletely out  of  joint  (for  which  there  is  scarcely 
any  authority  in  tlie  word  wTpan-ij),  but  turned 
aside,  turned  out  of  its  course;  and  thus  'that 
which  is  lame'  (to  x^^o")  means  not  the  lame 
part  of  the  body,  the  lame  limb,  but,  abstract 
for  concrete,  the  lame  person,  the  lame  ele- 
ment in  the  church — the  members  who,  defi- 
cient in  spiritual  vitality  and  strength,  and 
enfeebled  and  corrupted  by  Judaistic  influ- 
ences, go  haltingly  in  the  Christian  path. 
The  church  is  exhorted  to  make  straight  and 
level  courses  for  their  feet,  to  remove  every 
incumbrance  that  may  lie  along  the  spiritual 
race  course  that  the  lame  and  more  halting 
may  not  be  completely  stopped  and  thrown 
out  of  their  course.  But  rather  bfi  healed — 
that  those  inclined  to  Judaism  may  not  be  left 
to  total  aposta.sy,  but  rather  cured  of  all  their 
Judaizing  tendencies,  and  brought  once  more 
fully  into  the  path  of  Christian  faith  and  duty. 
The  'halting'  is  doubtless  mainly  the  waver- 
ing between  Judaism  and  Christianity.  The 
plain  and  straight  path  avoids  all  unnecessary 
turnings,  elevations,  depressions,  roughnesses, 
everything  which  could  easily  ensnare  a  weak 
conscience  or  disturb  an  unsettled  faith. 

14.  Follow  (follow  after,  pursue)  peace 
with  (atnong)  all  men — here,  not  among  all 
men  indiscriminately,  but  among  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church.  The  author's  immediate 
anxiety  is  for  the  fidelity  and  steadfastness  of 
the  church,  and  for  the  avoidance  of  every- 
thing which  may  threaten  it.  He  is  too  much 
absorbed  in  reclaiming  the  church  from  its 
incipient  and  threatened  apostasy,  to  allow  of 


^  Ka'i  Tpo^'a?  6pSo9  Trot^craTe  Tois  iroirtv  viiuv.  Imi- 
tated from  Septuagint,  Prov.  4  :  26.  The  more  flexible 
German  can  here  attain  something  of  the  stately  ele- 
gance of  the  Greek.    Delitzsch  renders  it : 

"  Uud  gradspiirige  Gleise  bereitet  fiir  euere  Fusse." 

Bohme  thus  : 

"  Und  fiir  euere  Fiisse  bereitet  euch  ebene  Bahnen." 

In  simple  English,  "And  makestraight  paths  for  your 
feet,"  the  poetical  rhythm,  as  well   as  the  special  ele- 


gance of  the  diction,  is  entirely  lost.    It   might    be 
rhythmical'y  rendered : 

"And  for  your  feet  prepare  ye  level  pathways." 
Nor  does  the  poetical  impulse  immediately  exhaust 
itself    Besides  a  certain    poetical    coloring   over  the 
whole,  we  hare  a  little  below  two  complete   iauiUo 
trimeters: 

OB  X*"?'^  oi>icis  oi/ifToi  rhv  Kvpiov 
"Eitianoitovvm  lit)  Tis  varepuiy  olto  ic.t.X, 


172 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


15  Looking  diligcDtly  lest  any  man  fail  of  the  grace 
of  God;  lest  any  root  of  biiterness  springing  up 
trouble  you,  and  tliereby  many  be  defiled ; 


15  looking  carefully  '  lest  there  be  any  man  that  -  falleth 
short  of  the  grace  of  God  •  lest  any  root  of  bitter- 
ness  springing  up   trouble  you,  and   thereby  the 


1  Or,  whether 2  Or,  falleth  hack  from. 


his  deviating  into  general  directions  regarding 
their  Christian  work  and  character.  The  first 
thing  is  to  assure  their  Christianity,  their 
Christian  disciplesliip.  Peace  among  all  the 
members  is  to  be  sought  by  avoiding  all  im- 
pure and  foreign  elements,  by  removing  every 
unnecessary  ground  of  dissension  and  offense. 
And  holiness — a  consecrating  of  themselves 
to  the  Lord,  sanctification — without  which 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.'  Whether  by 
'the  Lord'  is  intended  here  God  or  Christ  seems 
difficult  to  decide.  'Blessed  are  the  pure  in 
heart,  for  they  shall  see  God,'  would  point  to 
the  one,  while  passages  like  "Ye  shall  die  in 
your  sins,  and  where  I  am  ye  cannot  come," 
would  indicate  the  possibility  of  the  other. 
As  to  the  essential  thought,  it  is  of  course 
immaterial ;  as  to  see  God  is  to  see  Christ,  and 
the  converse. 

15.  Looking  diligently  (watching,  €iri<7(co- 
Ttovvm,  overseeing,  having  watchful  oversight, 
but  with  no  reference  to  official  action),  giving 
careful  heed  and  attention.  Lest  any  man 
(one),  fail  short  of  the  grace  of  God.  Whether 
this  is  to  be  taken  with  the  verb  (rf)  under- 
stood, as  a  complete  construction,  'be  falling 
short,'  equivalent  to  'fall  short,'  or  as  a  par- 
ticipial clause,  subject  of  trouble  (cfoxA^), 
harass,  with  a  broken  construction,  is  doubt- 
ful. The  latter  (with  Liinemann,  De  Wette, 
Delitzsch,  etc.)  seems  preferable.  The  con- 
struction of  the  Greek  [ixntpiov  an-d),  which 
(more  than  the  mere  vanpiiv)  marks  voluntary 
and  guilty  delinquency,  leads  to  the  impres- 
sion that  the  writer  already  had  it  in  his  mind 
to  put  them  on  their  guard,  not  against  failing, 
coming  short  of  the  grace  of  God,  but  against 
the  pestilent  influence  of  persons  who  might 
stand  aloof  from,  or  fall  willfully  short  of  that 
grace.  This,  I  think,  is  also  pointed  to  in  the 
verb  to  'watch'  {ini.<TKoiT€lv).     I  think,   there- 


fore, that  the  writer  intended  to  write,  'lest 
any  one,  falling  short,'  etc.,  may  harass  you, 
or  may  prove  a  root  of  bitterness;  but  con- 
tiixuing  the  discourse  by  a  reference  to  D(mt. 
29  :  18,  was  Ted  to  abandon  his  construction, 
and  take  it  up,  and,  lest — I  say — any  root  of 
bitterness  springing  up  trouble  you. 2 
The  passage  in  Deut.  29  :  18  reads,  '  Lest  there 
be  among  you  a  root  springing  up  in  gall  and 
bitterness '  (Septuagint,  m>)  n?  iarXv  iv  vii.lv  pt^a 
avu)  liivovaa.  iv  xo^fi  "li  ""«?'?);  English  Version: 
'  Lest  there  be  among  you  a  root  that  beareth 
gall  and  wormwood.'  The  'root  of  bitter- 
ness' in  the  Old  Testament  is  a  source  of  cor- 
ruption, temptation,  and  apostasy;  heathen 
men  and  women,  dwelling  among  the  Israel- 
ites, and  alienating  them  from  the  worship  of 
the  living  God.  So  here  the  'root  of  bitter- 
ness' is  a  person  '  failing  of  the  grace  of  God,' 
with  heart  untouched  by  the  spirit  of  Christian 
faith,  and  sowing  among  the  disciples  the 
seeds  of  doubt,  heresy,  and  utter  alienation 
from  the  doctrines  of  Christianity;  a  person 
who,  like  Esau  in  the  family  of  Isaac,  has  no 
spiritual  affinities  with  the  children  of  tlie 
promise,  and  whose  sensual  mind  will  both 
itself  be  drawn  away  and  draw  away  others 
from  their  Christian  steadfastness.  The  dan- 
ger of  apostasy,  and  of  the  influences  which 
seduce  into  apostasy,  is  apparent  in  the  au- 
thor's mind.  The  bitter  and  poisonous  root, 
then,  denotes  here  primarily  persons,  not  doc- 
trines or  dispositions,  as  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
is  called  1  Mace.  1  :  10,  'a  sinful    root'    (pi^a 

d^apTuiAo;  ) . 

4.nd  thereby  (through  it)  (the)  many  (it 
iroAAot,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf;  Textus  Ke- 
ceptus,  TToAAoi,  many)  be  defiled.  "A  little 
leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump."  One 
poisonous  plant  may  infect  the  whole  atmos- 
phere, and  destroy  many. 


1  OB  xiapU  for  x<"P'«  o"  shows  that  the  iambic  rhythm 
is  here  not  unintentional. 

2  Whether  the  cfo^Aij,  trouble,  hnrasx,  was  in  the  text 
of  the  Septuafiint  employed  by  the  aiitlior  is  doubtful. 
The  Alexandrian  Codex,  which  be  usually  follows,  has 
it,  but  so  awkwardly  introduced  th.it  it  looks  more  like 
a  correction  from  this  passage  (m'J  ti?  iaiiv  iv  ii/jilv 


pi^a  irixpi'af  avta  ^vovira  evoxAjJ  <tat  irtKpia),  in  which  the 
text  has  been  clearly  tampered  with  in  an  endeavor  to 
unite  incompatible  readings.  Tlie  use  of  evox^fj  may 
very  probably,  as  suggested  by  Delitzsch,  be  occasioned 
by  its  atSnity  in  sound  to  fv  xoA>5,  making  a  sort  of 
verbal  correspondence  not  unfamiliar  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 


Ca.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


173 


16  Lest  there  be  any  fornicator,  or  profane  person,  as 
Esau,  who  for  one  morsel  of  meal  solJ  his  birlhriglit. 

17  For  ye  know  how  that  afterward,  when  be  would 
have  inherited  the  blessiug,  he  was  rejected:  for  he 
found  no  place  of  ropentauce,  ihougli  he  sought  it  care- 
fully with  tears. 


16  many  be  defiled ;  '  lest  there  be  any  fornicator,  or 
profane  person,  as  Esau,  who  for  one  uie.->s  of  meat 

17  sold  his  own  iiirtDriglu.  l-'or  ye  know  that  even 
when  he  afierward  desired  to  inherii.  the  blessing, 
he  was  2  rejected  ;  for  he  found  no  place  for  a  change 
of  mind  ih  his  father,  thougli  he  sought  it  diligeuiiy 
with  tears. 


1  Or,  whether 2  Or,  rejected  (/or  he  found  noplace  of  repentance),  etc.    Or,  rejected;  for  .  .  .  0/ repenlanee,  etc. 


16.  An  illustration  of  this  defiling  and  pois- 
oning root  of  bitterness  is  found  in  Esau,  and 
his  relations  to  the  Abrahamic  family.  Lest 
there  be  any  fornicator,  or  profane  per- 
son, as  Esau.  Whether  fornicator  (n-dpi-os) 
should  be  referred  here  as  so  commonly  in  the 
Old  Testament  (though  rarely  in  the  New) 
to  spiritual  whoring,  going  after  strange  gods, 
seems  doubtful.  The  connection  of  the  above 
quoted  passage,  which  has  reference  to  allure- 
ments to  that  idolatry  which  constitutes  spir- 
itual harlotry,  as  well  as  the  natural  require- 
ments of  the  passage  itself,  would  seem  to 
point  to  this  interpretation.  The  general  ab- 
sence of  this  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament is,  on  the  other  hand,  though  not 
decisively,  against  it.  With  Bohme,  Tholuck, 
Ebrard,  etc.,  I  incline  to  the  spiritual  view, 
as  it  seems  out  of  place  to  select  literal  forni- 
cation out  of  the  whole  catalogue  of  sins  as 
one  to  be  specially  guarded  against.  The  gen- 
eral driftof  the  passage  certainly  seems  against 
it.  Still  either  makes  a  not  inapposite  sense, 
and  if  the  author  had  Esau  in  mind,  his  selec- 
tion of  traits  may  have  been  determined  by 
the  well-known  or  traditional  character  of 
Esau,  whose  marriage  with  a  Canaanitish 
woman  grieved  his  parents,  and  showed  both 
his  sensuality  and  his  profaneness — that  is,  his 
willingness  to  sacrifice  his  high  theocratic 
relations,  as  one  of  the  chosen  family  and  by 
birth  an  heir  of  promise,  to  worldly  impulses 
and  sensual  desires.  Esau  contaminated  him- 
self and  tlie  pure  stock  of  Abraham  by  inter- 
mixture with  idolatries,  and  by  encountering 
the  temptations  of  such  a  connection.  And 
again,  in  throwing  away  his  birthright  for 
relief  from  a  paroxysm  of  hunger,  he  showed 
himself 'profane'  (^c^tjAos),  not  inspired  with 
the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  Abrahamic 
family,  not  heeding  the  covenant  relations 
which  God  had  entered  into  with  it,  but  ready 
to  cast  his  lot  with  the  sectaries  of  the  world 
outside.  His  'fornication'  may  have  been 
spiritual  or  natural,  as  we  may  well  suppose 
would  accompany  one  of  his  violent  fleshly 


appetites  and  unspiritual  temper.  Or  very 
possibly,  the  word  here  may  fluctuate  between 
fleshly  and  spiritual  fornication,  each  being 
intimately  connected  with  the  other.  Tiie 
case  of  Esau,  then,  is  admirably  in  point  as 
applied  to  those  who,  failing  of  tlie  grace  of 
God,  sensual,  out  of  sympathy  with  the  spir- 
itual nature  and  hopes  of  the  gospel,  may  seek 
to  draw  back  the  disciples  into  the  worldly 
elements  of  Judaism.  In  accordance  with  the 
general  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament,  Esau  is 
presented  here,  not  so  much  in  his  personal 
character  as  in  his  theocratic  relations.  In 
the  gospel,  however,  the  distinction  between 
the  two  entirely  ceases.  Man  is  legally  what 
he  is  personally. 

Who  for  one  morsel  of  meat  («  single 
meaO  sold  his  birthright.  (Gen.25:3i.)  Esau 
manifested  his  contempt  for  his  birthright, 
and  his  indiflPerence  to  the  high  spiritual  bless- 
ings which  belonged  to  the  descendants  of 
Abraham,  by  his  readiness  to  barter  away  the 
prerogatives  of  the  first  born  in  that  family. 
It  is  not  necessary  wholly  to  approve  the  con- 
duct of  Jacob;  we  certainly  cannot  but  con- 
demn that  of  Esau.  He  manifested,  with 
whatever  principles  of  native  and  merely 
worldly  generosity,  a  total  insensibility  to  the 
peculiar  and  extraordinary  prerogatives  of 
his  house.  With  those  prerogatives  he  could 
not  have  been  unacquainted;  he  could  not 
have  been  unaware  of  the  extraordinary  his- 
tory and  destination  of  his  family-.  He  was  a 
'  profane'  person,  in  that  he  voluntarily^  threw 
himself  outside  of  the  sphere  of  those  high 
blessings  wrapped  up  in  the  Abrahamic  Cove- 
nant. And  persons  of  corresponding  char- 
acter, unspiritual,  sensual,  unsusceptible  to 
the  pure  truths  of  Christianity,  were  equally 
dangerous  to  the  purity  and  steadfastness  of 
the  spiritual  offspring  of  Abraham.  Moral 
Esaus  among  them  would  be  poisonous  and 
bitter  roots. 

17.  For  ye  know  how  that  afterward, 
when  he  would  have  inherited  the  bless- 
ing, he  was  rejected.    His  case  is  analogous, 


174 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


intimates  the  writer,  to  that  of  those  who  have 
been  admitted  to  the  privileges  and  hopes  of 
the  gospel  and  have  abandoned  them.  He 
had  been  heir  to  the  blessings  promised  to 
Abraham,  and  had  lightly  esteemed  and 
thrown  them  away.  The  case  was  then  de- 
cided. He  had  no  chance  of  recovering  them ; 
they  were  gone  forever  beyond  his  reach.  His 
case  was  like  that  of  those  who  had  been  once 
enlightened,  and  have  fallen  away;  like  that 
of  the  land,  which,  having  drunk  in  the  rains 
of  heaven,  and  yielded  but  thorns  and  briers, 
receives  no  '  blessing,'  but  is  reprobate,  dis- 
carded (a6o(ct(*6?),  just  as  Esau  was  reprobated 
(aiii&oKiniiadti).  The  Verb  means  more  than 
'rejected' — it  implies  the  ground  of  the  re- 
jection, and,  consequently,  its  finality.  He  is 
tried,  proved  (Soici/na^uj),  and  is  given  up  as  not 
standing  the  trial,  as  worthless,  reprobate 
(dSoKiftos).  We  have  but  a  repetition,  then, 
in  another  form,  of  the — in  this  Epistle — oft- 
repeated  assertion  of  the  hopeless  condition  of 
the  apostate.  He  is  to  the  church  of  Christ 
what  Esau,  after  selling  his  birthright,  was  to 
temporal  Israel.  'Rejected,'  discarded — by 
whom?  Some  say,  by  God;  others,  by  his 
father — more  truly,  by  both,  his  father  acting 
simply  as  the  organ  of  the  divine  will.  God 
had  inspired  Isaac's  blessing  of  Jacob,  and 
Isaac  felt  that,  if  he  would,  he  could  not  revoke 
it.  Esau's  etforts,  then,  for  recovering  the  lost 
blessing,  were  necessarily  vain — for  he  found 
no  place  of  (for)  repentance  though  he 
sought  it  carefully  with  tears.  It  is  com- 
monly supposed  that  the  repentance  for  which 
Esau  found  no  place,  was  in  his  father.  But  this 
ignores  both  the  construction  and  the  connec- 
tion. Had  the  author  referred  to  the  change 
in  Isaac's  mind,  perspicuity  required  that  he 
should  say  so,  or  give  some  hint  of  it.  As  it 
is,  the  language  naturally  refers  the  repent- 
ance to  himself.  And  this  harmonizes  with 
the  connection.  The  writer  illustrates  the  case 
of  the  reprobate  Christian  by  that  of  the 
reprobate  Esau.  But  the  former  cannot  be 
renewed  to  repentance.  When  fairly  and 
completely  backslidden,  his  case  is  hopeless, 
and   there  is  no  place  for  repentance.     This 


character  Esau  symbolizes.  He  had  turned 
his  back  on  the  theocratic  blessing,  and  it 
were  now  but  a  mere  platitude  in  the  connec- 
tion to  say  that  he  found  no  place  for  change 
in  the  mind  of  his  father.  He  found  no  place 
for  repentance  in  hi^nself ;  no  chance  of  un- 
doing the  mischief  which  his  sensuality  and 
unbelief  had  wrought ;  no  chance  of  cherish- 
ing a  repentance  which  should  produce  the 
legitimate  fruits  of  repentance.  He  was  rep- 
robated;  his  error,  and  its  results,  were  irre- 
trievable. That  Esau  was  absolutely  and 
finally  rejected  in  his  personal  relations  to 
God  ;  that  he  may  not  have  so  repented  as  to 
be  personally  accepted  of  him — I  do  not  be- 
lieve to  be  necessarily  implied.  His  case  is 
viewed  in  its  t3'pical  aspect ;  he  is  presented  to 
us  in  his  theocratic  relations.  As  Isaac's  first 
born,  the  blessing  promised  to  Abraham  had 
naturally  descended  to  him  ;  and  now,  by  his 
sensuality  and  unbelief,  by  his  want  of  faith 
precisel3'  in  its  double  element  of  believing  in 
the  invisible  and  looking  forward  to  the  future, 
he  had  lost  it  for  himself  and  his  offspring  ir- 
recoverably. He  found  no  place  for  an  effect- 
ual repentance. 

I  have,  with  many  (as  the  Revised  Version, 
margin),  put  this  clause  in  a  parenthesis,  and 
thus  made  the  following,  '  sought  it  with  tears,' 
refer  back  to  the  'blessing.'  This  is  most  natural 
in  thought,  and  makes,  at  least,  an  equally 
easy  and  elegant  construction,  and  a  paren- 
thetical construction  of  which  this  Epistle 
presents  cases  enougli  amply  to  justify  the 
present.'  I  adopt  this  construction,  however 
(with  Delitzsch),  not  because  I  deem  it  strictly 
necessary,  but  simply  much  more  easj'  and 
natural.  It  is  more  natural  to  say  that  Esau 
sought  for  the  blessing  with  tears,  than  that 
he  sought  for  repentance  with  tears.  This 
latter  construction  I  should  not  (with  De- 
litzsch) reject  as  contrarj'  to  the  historical  fact, 
but  simply  as  less  natural.  A  writer  might 
say  that  Esau,  in  seeking  the  blessing,  sought 
for  that  repentance  which  should  bring  it 
back — that  is,  he  sought  the  fruits  of  repent- 
ance, and  thus  might,  in  a  sense,  be  said  to 
seek  for  repentance  itself.     Still,  the  construc- 


1  How  Moll  can  affirm  that  the  assumption  of  such  a 
parenthesis  is  against  the  genius  of  the  Epistle  I  can 
scarcely  comprehend— 7  :  11, 19,  21 ;  10  :  8,  24  are  ample 
to  prove  the  contrary.  I  believe  there  are  many  cases 
in    the  New  Testament  where  the  assumption  of   a 


parenthesis  will  alone  clear  up  the  construction,  as 
John  1 :  14.  I  take  Rom.  9:3  (r\vx6ixr)v — xP'<'"''°>')  as  a 
case  in  which  a  parenthesis  is  almost  certain,  and  es- 
sentially illuminates  the  passage. 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


175 


IS  For  ye  are  not  coiue  unto  the  mount  that  might 
be  louclied,  and  that  burned  wiih  fire,  nor  unto  black- 
ness, and  darkness,  and  teiupesl, 

19  And  the  .suiiud  of  a  trumpet,  and  the  voice  of 
words;  which  vuict  they  tliat  heaid  entreated  that  the 
word  should  not  be  spoken  to  them  any  more  : 

20  (b'or  they  could  not  endure  that  which  was  com- 
manded, And  if  so  much  as  a  beast  touch  the  mount- 
ain, it  shall  be  stoned,  or  thrust  through  wiih  a  dart: 

21  And  so  terrible  was  the  sight,  llial  Moses  said,  I 
exceedingly  fear  and  quake:) 


18  For  ye  are  not  como  unto  i  n  mount  that  might  be 
touched,  and  that  burned  with  tiie,  and  unloblack- 

19  ness,  and  darkness,  and  tempest,  and  the  sound  of  a 
trumpet,  and  the  voice  of  words;  which  voire  they 
that  heard  intreated  that  no  word  more  should  be 

20  spoken  unto  them  :  for  iliey  could  not  endure  that 
which   was    enjoined,   II    even   a    beast  touch    the 

21  mountain,  it  shall  lie  stoned  ;  and  so  fearful  was  the 
appearance,  thai  Moses  said,  I  exceedingly  lear  and 


1  Or,  a  palpable  and  kindled  Jlrt. 


tion  is  awkward,  and  it  seems  to  me  far  simp- 
ler, and  liable  to  no  objection,  to  throw  the 
clause,  "he  found  no  place,"  etc.,  into  paren- 
thesis, and  refer  back  the  '  it '  (avriji/)  to 
'blessing.'     Thus  all  becomes  easj'. 

(d)  They  are  to  hearken  to  these  exhortations 
in  view  of  the  grandeur  and  exalted  character 
of  the  New  Covenant,  and  the  danger  of  dis- 
regarding its  blessings  and  claims.     (18-29.) 

We  have  here  the  final  summing  up  of  the 
■whole  exhortation,  or  rather,  perhaps,  of  the 
whole  preceding  discussion,  in  one  magnificent 
comparison  and  solemn  appeal.  The  passage 
is  in  an  almost  epical  strain  of  sublimity — it 
is  a  long,  loud  trumpet  peal  from  Sinai  re- 
echoed in  softened  notes  from  Sion,  the  heav- 
enly Jerusalem,  exhorting  the  readers  by  all 
the  richer  prerogatives  of  the  New  Covenant, 
and  by  all  the  sharper  woes  of  spurning  it,  to 
Christian  steadfastness  and  fidelity.  As  if  the 
writer  would  bring  into  comparison  that  pas- 
sage of  the  spiritual  Israel  into  its  Sabbath 
rest  mentioned  (3:3),  with  the  desert  sojourn 
of  ancient  Israel,  he  proceeds: 

18.  For  ye  are  not  come — hare  not  dravm 
near  to  a  mountain  that  is  handled;  that  is, 
to  an  earthlj-,  material  mountain,  which  is 
palpable  to  sense;  namely,  Mi)unt  Sinai,  be- 
fore which  ancient  Israel  was  brought  in  the 
wilderness.  And  that  burned — and  to  kindled 
fire.  Most  commentators  take  the  participle 
(icexaujieVoi)  as  attributive  of  'mount'  (6pei)i 
'and  burning  with  fire';  but  the  position  of 
'mount'  (opei)  is  adverse  to  it,  and  Deut. 
4  :  36  mentions  the  great  fire  separately.  It 
seems  more  natural,  therefore,  to  take  it  as 
above.  Nor  unto  blackness  {cloud  gloom) 
and  darkness  and  tempest.  Such  is  the 
language  in  Deut.  41  :  11. 

19.  And  the  sound— .^nrf  to  a  blast  of  a 


trumpet  (Kxod.  i9:  is)— and  the  («)  voice  of 
words  (Deut.  4:  12,  ^ufij  prt^dTuv)  which  they 
that  heard— the  Israelites  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountains-^begged  {napji'njaai'ro,  begged  ofl^, 
entreated  againat)  that  no  further  word  should 
be  spoken  to  them;  referring  to  Deut.  5  :  25, 
where  the  terrified  people  entreat  that  God 
may  not  speak  further  to  them  directly. 

20.  For  they  could  not  endure— co?<W 
not  bear  that  which  was  enjoined.  "'  If  even  a 
beast  touch  the  mountain,  it  shall  be  stoned," 
cited  from  Exod.  19  :  12,  13,  but  not  with 
verbal  exactness." 

21.  And— so  fearful  was  the  apjyearance 
{spectacle)  that  Moses  said,  I  exceedingly 
fear  and  quake  {lam  terrified  and  tremb- 
ling!). The  punctuation  of  the  passage  here 
given, — I  mean  a  pause  after  'And,'  — one 
imparting  much  elegance  to  the  construction, 
is  due  to  Beza.  The  language  here  attributed 
to  Moses  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament 
narrative  in  this  connection.  But,  subse- 
quently, when  on  the  mount  he  learned  of 
the  idolatry  of  the  Israelites,  he  exclaimed, 

'  I  am  in  terror !'  ("EK<i,ofi6%),  and  in  Acts  7  :  32 
it  is  said  of  him,  when  he  saw  the  burning 
bush,  that,  being  filled  with  trembling,  he  did 
not  venture  to  contemplate  it  (eVrpojuos  Si  yev6- 
iifvo^  ovK  fToXfia  KaTavoriaai) .  Either,  therefore, 
tradition  put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses  this 
language  at  the  time  of  God's  descending 
(which  seems  not  improbable),  or  the  author 
combines  different  and  scattered  elements  into 
one  picture.  It  matters  little,  perhaps,  which, 
though  I  confess  I  incline  (against  Delitzsch, 
Moll,  etc.)  to  the  former.  Moses  may  at  first 
have  well  shared  the  terror  of  the  people. 
Verses  2C,  21  are  parenthetical,  illustrating, 
in  passing,  the  terrific  m.'tjesty  of  the  divine 
appearance. 


''Opet,  rejected  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  but  retained 
by  Tischendorf,  and  inserted  in  the  Revised  Version. 
1  regard  it  as  almost  certainly  genuine. 

*"0r  thrust  through  with  a  dart"  (ij  /SoAi'Si  Kararo- 


ffu9)j<r€Toi),  read  by  Erasmus,  and  belonging  to  the 
Textus  Receptus,  is  rejected  by  all  critical  editions,  and 
greatly  weakens  and  mars  the  passage. 


176 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIL 


22  But  ye  are  come  unto  mount  Sion,  and  unto  the 
city  of  the  living  (iod,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  aud  to 
an  iunuuierahle  company  of  angels, 

23  To  tlie  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first- 
born, which  are  written  in  heaven,  and  to  God  the 
Judge  of  all,  aud  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  per- 
fect. 


22  quake:  but  ye  are  come  unto  mount  Ziou,  and  unto 
the  city  of  the  living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, 

23  >and  to  ^  innumerable  hosts  of  angels,  tcj  the  general 
assembly  and  church  of  the  firstborn  who  are  en- 
rolled iu  heaven,  and  to  God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  to 


1  Or,  and  to  innumerable  hosts,  the  general  asseinbly  of  angeUt  and  the  church,  etc '2  Gr.  myriads  o/  angeU. 


Thus  ancient,  temporal  Israel  came,  in  its 
journey,  to  a  material,  visible  mountain,  from 
which  they  were  yet  to  stand  at  a  distance, 
and  behold  and  hear  with  terror  the  tokens  of 
the  Divine  Presence.  It  was  at  once  sensible 
and  terrible,  repelling  from  God  rather  than 
attracting  toward  him.  The  spiritual  Israel, 
on  its  way  to  its  Sabbath  rest,  has  a  different 
experience.  The  earthly  seems  to  have  disap- 
peared, and  the  heavenly  has  opened.  A 
spiritual  world,  the  heavenly  Sion  and  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem,  with  God  its  King,  an- 
gels and  glorified  spirits  its  inhabitants,  Jesus, 
through  whose  mediation  it  is  accessible,  ap- 
pears, at  once  infinitely  higher  in  its  prerog- 
atives, and  correspondingly  more  terrible  in 
its  penalties. 

22,  23.  But  ye  are  come  unto  mount 
Sion — not  the  eaithly  Zion,  the  mountain  of 
the  citj'  of  David,  but  the  heavenly  Zion  qd 
which  is  the  throne  of  God  and  his  glorified 
Son:  'Yet  have  I  set  my  king  on  Zion,  the 
mountain  of  my  holiness.'  It  is  no  mountain 
that  can  be  touched,  but  spiritual.  (Rev.  u  -.  i.) 
John  saw  the  Lamb  standing  on  Mount  Zion. 
It  is  the  seat  of  the  city  of  the  living  God, 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  thus  at  once 
the  counterpart  of  the  earthly-  Sinai,  and  the 
antitype  of  the  earthlj'  Zion.  In  this  city,  on 
this  mountain,  God  has  fixed  his  throne,  and 
here  the  Son  of  David  is  to  hold  the  seat  and 
capital  of  his  dominion  and  reign  forever  in 
glory  over  the  spiritual  Israel.  The  distinc- 
tion which  in  the  earthly  city  of  David  existed 
between  Mount  Zion  and  Mount  Moriah,  the 
more  immediate  localitj'  of  the  temple,  is  now 


to  be  entirely  done  awa^',  and  palace  and  tem- 
ple, king  and  great  high  priest  will  together 
fill  with  majesty  and  glory  this  heavenly  city. 
In  Rev.  21,  this  heavenly  Jerusalem  appears 
descending  to  earth  to  make  earth  again  the 
scene  of  the  consummated,  as  it  has  been  of 
the  nascent  and  growing,  glories  of  the  king- 
dom. And  to  an  innumerable  company. 
And  to  myriad  ones,  a  festal  host  of  angels, 
and  a  congregation  of  firstborn  ones,  v)lio.  are 
registered  in  heaven.  Such  is,  perhaps,  the 
best  construction  of  these  diflRcult  and  dis- 
puted words.  A  festal,  joyous  company  {iravri- 
yupt?)  of  exulting  angels,  \\\  full  chorus  of  song 
and  dance,  jubilant  before  the  throne.  After 
angels,  who,  as  ministering  spirits,  are  subor- 
dinated to  the  heirs  of  salvation,  come  the 
heirs  of  salvation  themselves,  the  congregtition 
of  the  faithful,  the  church  of  the  '  firstborn,' 
not  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament,  not  the 
earliest  believers  or  martj-rs  of  the  New,  but 
the  whole  body  of  believers  who  are  registered 
and  enrolled  in  heaven,  whose  citizenship  is 
there,  and  who  as  heirs  of  its  prerogatives  and 
glory  are  ^rs^6o?-n  (Trpwrdroicoi).  The  firstborn 
is,  as  such,  the  natural  heir  to  the  estate. 
Christians  are  all  equally  heirs:  they  are  all 
firstborn  ;  all  enrolled  and  destined  to  the  full 
prerogatives  of  heavenly  citizenship.  There 
seems  a  covert  relation  to  the  case  of  Esau. 
There  the  inheritance  was  confined  to  one. 
There  could  be  but  one  temporal  firstborn  ; 
here  is  a  "  congregation  of  firstborn  ones."  It 
is  to  this  goodly  fellowshipof  angels  and  saints 
that  the  New  Testament  Israel  has  come.^ 
And    to    <-Jod — and-  as  their  judge,  to  the 


1 1  follow  Delitzsch  constructing  this  passage.  Some 
construst : 

'  And  to  myriads  of  angels,  a  festal  company,  and  to 
the  church  of  the  firstborn,'  etc.,  in  which  the  isolated 
position  of '  a  festal  company  '  (n-acjiyvpi?)  seems  awk- 
ward. 

Others : 

'And  to  myriads,  a  festal  company  of  angels,  and  to 
the  church,'  etc..  making  '  a  festal  company '  (iravTjyiipis) 
an  apposition  with  nupiacrii',  hut  again  making  'myri- 
ads' (ii.v(>i.6.<nv)  awkwardly  solitary. 


Others : 

'  And  to  myriads  of  angels,  the  festal  company  and 
church,'  etc. ;  but  then  we  miss  the  '  and  '  (koi)  before  '  a 
festal  company'  jrar^yupn,  which  we  have  with  all  the 
other  members  of  the  polysyndeton,  and  which  it  seems 
unaccountable  should  have  been  omitted.  The  above 
construction  avoids  all  these  difficulties  and  brings  to- 
gether the  angels  and  the  church  into  a  union  entirely 
corresponding  to  that  in  which  they  appear  throughout 
the  New  Testament. 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


177 


24  And  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  |  24  the  spirits  of  just  uieu  made  perfect,  and  to  Jesus 
and  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  that  speuketh  better  the  mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of 

things  than  Ma/ 0/ Abel.  I        sprinkling  that  spcaketh  belter  '  ihau  lluit  of  Abel. 

1  Or,  thim  Aha. 


God  of  all.  They  are  come  to  this  church 
universiil,  and  with  it  to  that  God  of  all  things, 
wiio  will  judge  it— 'the  Lord  shall  judge  his 
people'  —  who  will  vindicate  its  members 
against  all  their  foes  and  persecutors,  and  on 
whose  rigiiteous  fidelity  they  can  rely  with 
implicit  confidence.  As  the  God  of  all,  more 
probably,  of  all  things,  lie  is  able  to  execute 
that  needed  work  of  judgment  for  his  church, 
always  struggling,  always  suffering,  always 
oppressed.  Hence  we  see  (with  Delitzsch)  why 
'  God'  is  introduced  precisely  here  in  the  enu- 
meration, and  why  in  his  character  of  Judge. 
And  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  {righteous 
ones)  made  perfect.  The  righteous  who 
have  already  gone  to  heaven,  who  have  fin- 
ished their  testimony  and  sealed  it,  some  by 
their  blood,  all  by  their  death.  These  are 
perfected;  they  have  reached  the  goal  of  their 
destiny  and  their  striving.  This  includes  alike 
the  Old  Testament  saints  who  have  since  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  entered  into 
tiie  glory  of  the  New  Testament  believers, 
and  all  the  New  Covenant  saints,  who  have 
died  in  the  Lord.  In  a  comparative  sense 
these  are  all  perfected,  although  it  is  yet  true 
that  a  higher  stage  of  glory,  a  more  entire 
perfection  awaits  them  with  the  resurrection  of 
their  bodies  at  the  Second  Coming. 

24.  And  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  (a) 
new  covenant — and  a  covenant  by  so  much 
better  than  the  Old,  as  its  Mediator  and  its  High 
Priest,  and  its  sanctions,  are  all  higher  than 
those  of  the  Old.  That  Old  Covenant  was  in- 
adequate to  secure  obedience:  it  was  neces.sary 
to  replace  it  by  a  New  ;  and  to  such  a  New 
one,  and  to  its  Mediator,  Jesus,  they  have 
come.  The  author  here  is  not  thinking  of  the 
glorified  and  reigning  Christ,  but  of  the  aton- 
ing and  interceding  Jesus  ;  hence  the  name  of 
tenderness,  the  name  of  the  suffering,  dying 
man,  and  the  emphatic  pre-position  of  that 
character  under  which  and  for  the  sake  of 
which  he  is  here  mentioned.  To  a  New  Cove- 
nant, to  a  Mediator  of  that  New  Covenant, 
and  to  .Jesus  as  that  Mediator  they  have  come. 
Follf)wing  naturally  on  the  '  Covenant'  (fioe^- 
Kij)  is  the  blood  that  consecrated  it. 


And  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling  {to  sprink- 
led blood) — blood  sprinkled  upon  the  people 
of  old  in  symbolical  expiation,  but  since  the 
great  sacrifice  sprinkled  upon  the  heart  in 
eflectual  cleansing  from  an  evil  conscience. 
Moses  sprinkled  the  people  with  blood  at  the 
foot  of  the  mount,  at  the  receiving  of  the 
Law  ;  signifying  that  cleansing  and  expiation 
could  be  made  only  with  blood.  That  speak- 
eth  better  {moremic/htily)  than  {did)  that  of 
Abel.  This  refers  not  to  the  blood  of  Abel's 
sacrifice,  but  his  own  blood  which,  sinking  into 
the  ground,  called  to  God  for  vengeance.  This 
vengeance  cry  which  God  heard  and  could  not 
but  hear,  represented  all  the  cry  of  outraged 
and  unappeased  justice  which  went  up  from 
our  guilt-stained  earth  to  God  :  a  cry  wfhich 
could  never  be  silenced  or  denied  but  by  the 
mightier  pleading  of  a  better  blood..  That 
blood  was  shed  by  Christ.  It  nof  merely 
speaks  better  things  then  did  Abel  or  the  blood 
of  Abel, — that  follows  from  the  different  nature 
of  the  two  sacrifices, — but  it  speaks  more  might- 
ily than  did  Abel.  The  plea  for  mercy  in  the 
blood  shed  by  the  righteous  victim  of  the  New 
Covenant  overpowers  and  swallows  up  the 
vengeance  plea  of  the  righteous  victim  of  the 
earlier  time.  It  speaks  more  mightily,  and 
thus  mercy  rejoices  against  vengeance. 

We  have  reached  the  end  of  the  parallel. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  author  studiously 
omits  the  article  in  the  second  as  in  the  first 
series  of  the  antithesis.  It  is  difficult  to  give 
the  full  force  of  this  in  English,  but  it  is  much 
more  elegant  and  forcible  in  Greek.  By  omit- 
ting the  article  he  designates  not  the  particular 
things,  as  known,  but  the  kind  or  class  of  things, 
as  if  now  first  spoken  of.  Ye  have  come  to  a 
mountain,  Zion,  to  a  city  of  the  living  God,  to 
a  festal  company,  to  a  congregation  of  first- 
born ones,  to  a  Judge,  the  God  of  all,  to  spirits 
of  righteous  men  perfected,  etc. 

Again,  Delitzsch,  with  some  others,  finds 
not  perhaps  a  strictly  designed,  but,  after  all, 
not  an  accidental  correspondence  in  the  num- 
ber of  members  constituting  the  parallel,  each 
containing  the  perfect  number  seven.  On  the 
one  hand— (1)  the  material  mountain,  (2)  the 


M 


178 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XII. 


25  See  that  ye  refuse  not  liim  that  speaketh :  for  if 
they  escaped  not  who  refused  him  that  spake  on  earth, 
much  more  skull  not  we  esciipt,  if  we  lurn  away  from 
him  that  speakelh  from  heaven: 

'26  Whose  voice  tiien  .shook  the  earth:  but  now  he 
hath  promised,  saying,  Yet  once  more  I  shake  not  the 
earth  only,  but  also  heaven. 

Ti  And  this  uord,  Yet  once  more,  signifieth  the  re- 
moving of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things 


25  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaketh.  For  if 
they  escaped  not,  when  tliey  refused  him  that 
warned  (lient  on  earth,  much  more  shall  nol  we  escape, 
who  turn  away  from  him  '  that  uarneth  Irom  hea- 

26  ven  :  whose  voice  then  shook  the  earth :  but  now  he 
hath  promised,  saying.  Yet  once  more  will  I  make 
to  tremble  not  the  earth  only,  but  also  the  heaven. 

27  And  this  word,  Yet  once  more,  signifieth  the  remov- 
ing of  those  things  that   are  shaken,  as  of  things 


1  Or,  that  is  from  heaven. 


"burning  fire,  (S)  cloud  gloom,  (4)  darkness, 
(5)  tempest,  (6)  the  trumpet  blast,  (7)  voice 
of  words.  On  the  other — (1)  Mount  Zion,  (2) 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  (3)  the  myriad  host 
of  angels  and  believers,  (4)  God,  the  Judge, 
(5)  the  spirits  of  tiie  perfected  righteous,  (6) 
the  mediator  Jesus,  (7)  the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling. Without  attempting,  with  some,  to 
carry  out  the  antithesis,  and  place  the  different 
members  one  against  each  other,  it  is  certain 
that  with  Mount  Sinai  is  contrasted  Mount 
Zion,  and  not  improbably  with  the  '  voice  of 
words'  which  -drove  off  the  listening  and 
affrighted  multitudes,  the  still  more  loudly 
and  mightily  speaking  blood  of  sprinkling. 
Thus  the  first  and  last  members  of  the  parallel, 
seem  placed  in  designed,  or  certainly  in  real 
correspondence  to  each  other. 

25.  See  that  ye  refuse  not,  beg  off  from, 
deprecatingly  decline  to  hear  (TrapaiT^crijo-fle  same 
as  ver.  19,  Ttap^rriaavro,  deprecated,  begged  off), 
him  that  speaketh  (\akovvTa,  perhaps  with 
reference  to  \a.\oumi.,  just  preceding,  ver.  24) — 
that  is,  apparently  God,  who  of  old  spoke 
through  angels  on  Sinai,  and  now  speaks 
through  his  Son  from  the  heavenly  Zion.  God 
is  ultimately  the  speaker  in  both  cases  (as  see 
1:1)  then  on  earth,  now  from  heaven.  For 
if  they  escaped  not  out  of  reach,  but  were 
compelled  to  abide  the  hearing,  when  they  re- 
fused to  hear  (irapainjcra/uc^'oi)  him  that  warned 
them  (or,  uttered  his  oracles)  on  earth,  locally 
and  in  a  limited  manner,  so  that  it  was  possible 
to  withdraw  from  the  sound  of  his  voice,  as 
also  looking  at  the  lessened  dignity  of  one  who 
spoke  on  earth.  Much  more,  etc.  Much  less 
shall  we  [escape]  who  turn  away  from  him  that 
speaketh  from  heaven.  If  th  e  endeavor  to  escape 
from  the  hearing  of  that  limited,  local,  earthly 
iitterance  on  the  summit  of  Sinai  was  vain, 
how  much  more  vain  the  endeavor  to  get  out 
of  the  reach  of  that  voice  which  is  uttered  from 
the  heavens.  God  once  spake  on  Sinai  through 
his  angels;  he  again  speaks  on  earth  through 


his  Son.  This  latter  is  not  now  adverted  to, 
but  rather  the  voice  which  he  now  utters 
through  his  Son  glorified  and  exalted  at  his 
right  hand  in  the  heavens.  This  voice  from 
the  heavenly  Zion,  to  which  the  marching 
church  has  come,  and  at  the  foot  of  which  she 
now,  as  it  were,  lies — this  voice  of  God  through 
the  Mediator,  promising  where  he  once  threat- 
ened, forgiving  where  he  once  condemned — 
this  voice  sent  down  to  men,  speaking  of  par- 
don and  reconciliation,  and  eternal  life,  uttered 
from  its  exalted  place,  whence  it  can  ring  out 
over  all  the  earth,  exempted  from  those  limita- 
tions of  space  and  matter  which  circumscribed 
and  hemmed  in  that,  but  from  the  opened 
heavens  speaking  into  the  spiritual  ear  of 
humanity, — this  we  cannot  escape  from.  This 
voice,  like  a  trumpet  blast,  echoes  over  all  the 
world,  and  this  calls  up  the  thought  of  the 
final  and  grand  scene  in  which  that  voice  is  yet 
more  fully  to  reveal  its  power. 

26.  Whose  voice  then  shook  the  earth 
— at  the  descent  on  Sinai  were  thunderings 
and  lightnings  and  earthquake — but  now  he 
hath  promised,  saying,  Yet  once  more 
{once  for  all)  I  shake  not  the  earth  only, 
but  also  heaven.  Cited  from  Haggai  2  :  6, 
from  the  Septuagint,  referring  to  the  future 
reign  of  the  Messiah.  One  final  concussion  is 
to  overthrow  all  things  which  can  be  over- 
thrown, and  leave  only  those  inherently 
imperishable,  to  remain  forever;  because,  of 
course,  as  there  is  to  be  no  subsequent  shaking, 
the  things  which  then  survive,  are  eternal. 
The  kingdoms  of  the  world,  all  that  is  purely 
temporal,  will  then  be  convulsed  and  buried 
in  ruins;  while  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Christ  will  emerge  and  stand  unshaken. 

27.  And  this  word  (language)  yet  once 
more  (once  for  all)  signifieth  the  removing 
{the  displacem,ent)  of  those  things  that 
are  shaken.  The  '  once  for  all '  implies  that 
the  world  will  be  thrown  down  finally  and 
forever;    that   there  can  be  no  need  of  any 


Ch.  XII.] 


HEBREWS. 


179 


that  are  made,  that  those    things  which    cannot  be 
shaken  may  reiuiiin. 

26  Wherefore  we  receiving  a  kingdom  which  cannot 
be  moved,  let  us  have  grace,  whereby  we  may  serve 
God  acceptably  with  reverence  and  godly  fear: 


that  have  been  made,  that  those  things  which  are 

28  not  shaken   may  remain.      Wherefore,  receiving  a 

kingdom  that  cannot  be  shaken,  let  us  have  'grace 

whereby  we  may  offer  service  well-pleasing  tO'Uod 


1  Or,  thank/ulnett. 


renewed  shaking,  as  the  purpose  of  the  shak- 
ing will  be  accomplished.  But  the  purpose  of 
the  shaking  can  only  be  to  test  the  durability 
and  permanence  of  the  elements  subjected  to 
it;  and,  of  course,  everything  that  can  be 
shaken  is  shown  to  be  void  of  permanence, 
and  will  be  removed,  to  leave  place  for  the 
permanent  and  everlasting.  As  of  things 
that  are  (have  been)  made — and,  of  course, 
changeable  and  perishable.  "What  has  been 
made  by  hands  can  in  like  manner  be  de- 
stroyed. That  those  things  which  cannot 
be  (ore  not)  shaken  may  remain.  It  may 
be  asked,  how  the  removal  of  the  things  which 
are  shaken  can  produce  the  permanency  of 
those  that  are  not  shaken.  Their  abiding 
cannot  be  caused  by  the  shaking  and  removal 
of  the  others.  True,  not  strictly.  But  the 
shaking  which  shows  the  perishable  to  be 
perishable,  and  causes  its  removal,  and  which 
shows  the  imperishable  to  be  imperishable, 
may  be  easily  conceived  as  causing  it  to  abide. 
That  which  tests  and  determines  the  abiding 
quality  of  an  object  it  is  easy  to  look  upon  as 
the  cause  of  its  abiding.  Or  we  may  easily 
take  the  expression  as  elliptical,  'in  order  that 
the  things  which  are  unshaken  [and  they  only] 
may  remain.'  The  transient  is  to  give  way  to 
the  permanent,  the  mutable  to  the  immutable, 
the  temporal  to  the  eternal.  Earth  and  heaven 
will  be  shaken  and  pass  away.  But  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth,  in  which  dwelleth 
righteousness,  and  connected  with  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom,  will  take  their  place  and  be 
forever.  Delitzsch,  with  some  others,  constructs 
"as  having  been  made,  in  order  that  the  things 
which  are  not  shaken  may  remain."  They  con- 
sider the  use  of  'made'  (ircn-oiij/itei'oii'),  standing 
absolutely  in  the  sense  of  'formed,  created,' 
without  any  complementary  clause,  as  harsh 
and  unwarrantable.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  some- 
what harsh  ;  but  is  not,  I  think,  liable  to  any 
serious  objection;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  seems  not  very  easy  to  see  in  what  sense  the 
things  which  are  shaken  can  be  said  to  have 
been  made,  in  order  that  those  which  are  not 
shaken  may  remain.     At  least,  it  is  a  very 


harsh  way  of  expressing  the  thought  that  the 
temporal  and  changeable  are  but  iniages  and 
types  of  the  unchangeable  and  eternal,  out  of 
which  these  latter  are  to  be  developed,  to  say 
that  the  former  have  been  made,  in  order  that 
the  latter  may  abide.  Nor  do  I  believe,  with 
Delitzsch,  that  the  declaration  "this  word  yet 
once  for  all,"  signifies  the  removal  of  the  things 
shaken,  demands  some  such  complementary 
expression  as  this.  Rather,  the  language  "yet 
once  for  all  I  shake,"  clearly  implying  that 
there  is  to  be  no  further  shaking,  must  natur- 
ally imply,  therefore,  that  the  proper  purposes 
of  shaking  will  be  then  accomplished;  and, 
of  course,  we  can,  strictly  speaking,  see  no 
object  in  shaking  things,  except  for  their  re- 
moval. If  they  are  to  remain,  and,  of  course, 
to  relapse  back  into  their  previous  condition, 
why  shake  them?  A  shaking  which  is  de- 
clared to  be  final,  must,  then,  unless  it  is  an 
idle  display  of  power,  result  in  the  removal 
of  all  that  can  be  shaken.  If  it  be  said  that 
the  unremovable  things,  as  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth,  are  also  said  to  be  '  made,' 
we  may  reply.  True,  this  may  be  said  in  spe- 
cial instances,  but,  speaking  generally,  they 
belong  to  the  category  of  spiritual  and  eternal 
things  which  are  not  conceived  as  being  made. 
The  natural  rule  is  that  that  which  has  been 
made  may  be  unmade. 

28.  Wherefore  we  receiving  a  kingdom 
that  cannot  be  moved  (shaken).  This  is 
here  taken  for  granted.  He  has  no  occasion 
now  to  prove  that  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of 
Christ  is  one  of  the  things — or,  rather,  the  one 
thing — which  shall  not  be  shaken.  The  old- 
world  monarchies  had  passed  away;  the  last 
of  them,  with  the  earth  itself,  was  destined  to 
pass  away,  and  then  (Dan.  7 :  is),  '  The  saints  of 
the  Most  High   would  receive  the  kingdom 

(koi  irapoA^i^ofrai  t^v  fiaaiKdav  aycoi  i/ijiiirrov).      This 

kingdom  we  are  to  receive  not  as  a  dominion 
or  empire  united  under  one  Prince,  of  which 
we  are  to  be  subjects  merely,  but  as  a  glorious 
dominion  of  which  we  are  to  be  participants. 
Christians  are  represented  not  as  subjects  in  a 
glorious  kingdom,  but  rulers  in   a  glorious 


180 


HEBREWS. 


[Cii.  XIII. 


[  29  with  1  reverence  and  awe:  for  our  God  is  a  consum- 
I        ing  fire. 


For  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


LET  brotherly  love  continue. 
2  Be    not    forgetful    to   entertain    strangers:    for 
thereby  some  have  entertained  angels  unawares. 


1      Let  love  of  the  brethren  continue.    Forget  not  to 
show  love  unto  strangers:   for  thereby  some  have 


1  Or,  godly  /ei 


kingdom.  Let  us  cherish  gratitude  is  better 
here  than  let  us  have  grace  (which  would 
require  x"?'*'  'X^m^")  i  ^^t  ws  retain,  hold  on 
to  grace  (would  require  Karexioiiev  x'^'P"')- 
Whereby  (through  which;  namely,  gratitude) 
we  may  serve  God  acceptably  (Codex 
Sinaiticus,  Aarpeuojaev,  we  do  serve,  etc.),  as 
ministers  or  worshipers  of  God  in  his  spiritual 
sanctuary,  like  those  who  took  literal  part  in 
the  ancient  ritual ;  service,  not  merely  in  the 
general  sense  of  rendering  obedience — though 
obedience  is,  of  course,  the  essence  of  the 
service — but  with  specific  allusion  to  the  ser- 
vice of  the  sanctuary — with  pious  reverence 
and  godly  fear  ;  filial  reverence  («iAo/3eia,  5 :  7), 
which  will  lovingly  heed  his  transcendent 
greatness  and  authority;  '■fear'  of  the  pun- 
ishments that  await  disobedience. 

29.  For  our  God  is  (also)  a  consuming 
lire.  A  ground  of  the  fear  and  devoutness 
which  are  the  mark  of  our  service.  The 
thought  is  not,  "for  also  our  God,  as  well  as 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament"  (which  would 
require  {rnxoiv  6  fled?,  or,  still  better,  6  yap  ijixe- 
Tepos  fleos),  but,  "for  also  is  our  God  " — that  is, 
not  only  a  God  of  grace  and  benignity,  but 
also  (<cat)  a  consuming  fire.  He  speaks  in 
power  as  well  as  in  love.  He  proifers  grace 
and  salvation,  and  bestows  an  everlasting 
kingdom  ;  but  he  also  destroys  those  who  un- 
gratefully and  unbelievingly  reject  his  prof- 
fers. Delitzsch  supposes  that  the  expression 
points  to  the  double  quality  of  fire — its  power 
to  illumine,  as  well  as  to  burn  ;  fts  benig- 
nant, as  well  as  it3  wrathful  nature.  The  lan- 
guage is  cited  from  Deut.  4  :  24  (»tupios  o  Oeds 

ffow  TrOp  (caTai'aAio'/col'  itrri,  flebs  ^rjAioTT)?). 


CONCLUSION.     (13 : 1-25. ) 

For  the  first  time  in  the  entire  Epistle  the 
author's  tone  now  relaxes.  There  has  previ- 
ously been  almost  no  word,  apparently,  said 
that  did  not  bear  upon  the  one  single  purpose 
of  rescuing  his   readers   from    incipient   and 


threatened  apostasy,  of  preserving  them  on 
the  foundation  of  the  gospel.  There  has 
been  scarcely  a  single  exhortation,  or  argu- 
ment, that  has  not  been  directed  to  this 
end.  The  dreadful  consequence  of  falling 
away  from  God  has  hitherto  been  the  key- 
note of  the  entire  Epistle.  The  tone  now 
changes.  Some  general  exhortations  addressed 
to  Christians  as  such,  and  on  more  general 
points  of  Christian  duty,  are  now  introduced. 
The  author  has  done  his  work  so  elaborately, 
so  thoroughly,  that  he  can  now  afford  to  turn 
for  a  few  moments  to  what  may  be  termed 
the  commonplaces  of  Christian  exhortation, 
although  so  full  is  his  mind  of  the  one  grand 
theme  that  he  yet  again  returns  to  it  before 
concluding  his  Epistle. 

Ch.  13.  (1)  Practical  admonitions  to  vari- 
ous Christian  duties.     (1-9.) 

1.  Let  brotherly  love  continue.  From 
6  :  10;  10  :  33  it  is  clear  that  the  Christians  ad- 
dressed had  been  formerly  eminent  for  this 
virtue.  From  this  passage,  it  is  evident  that, 
however  weakened  by  the  lowered  tone  of 
their  Christian  life,  it  still  existed  among 
them.  In  their  Judaizing  inclinations,  they 
would  be  tempted  to  restrain  their  fraternal 
intercourse  with  Gentile  Christians,  and,  in- 
deed, with  each  other  as  disciples.  Hence  the 
special  importance  of  reminding  them  to  re- 
vive and  cherish  this  grace,  and  also  the 
putting  first  of  the  noun  rather  than  of  the 
verb  is  a  delicate  intimation  that  there  was 
some  slackening  in  this  respect.  He  says, 
'Let  brotherly  love  continue';  not,  'Let 
brotherly  love  continue,'  as  if  its  present  ex- 
istence were  no  matter  of  doubt,  and  the  only 
question  was  of  its  continuance. 

2.  Be  not  forgetful,  etc.  {do  not  forget  the 
entertainment  of  strangers).  This  is  one  spe- 
cific and  very  important  form  which  brotherly 
love  might  assume.  "When  the  lines  are  as 
sharply  drawn  as  between  Jews  and  heathen, 
and  between  both  and  Christians,  the  latter 
being  objects  of  common  hatred,  the  enter- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


HEBREWS. 


181 


3  Remember  them  that  are  in  bonds,  as  bound  with 
them  ;  and  them  which  suffer  adversity,  as  being  your- 
selves also  in  the  body. 

4  Marriage  is  honourable  in  all,  and  the  bed  unde- 
filed:  but  whoremongers  and  adulterers  God  will  judge. 

5  //«<  yoKr  conversation  6e  without  covetousness;  and 
be  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have:  for  he  hath 
said,  I  will  never  leave  thee,  nor  forsake  thee. 


3  entertained  angels  unawares.  Remember  them  that 
are  in  bonds,  as  bound  with  them;  them  that  are 
evil  entreated,  as  being  yourselves  also  in  the  body. 

4  Let  marriage  be  hatl  in  honour  umong  all,  and  tel  the 
bed  be  undetiled:  for  fornicators  and  adulterers  (iod 

5  will  judge.  '  Be  ye  free  troiu  the  love  of  money: 
content  with  such  things  as  ye  have:  for  himself 
bath  said,  1  will  in  no  wise  fail  thee,  neither  will  I 


1  Gr.  Let  your  turn  of  miod  be  free. 


tainment  of  traveling  Christians  by  their 
brethren  would  become  an  urgent  duty,  and 
upon  Jewish  Christians  some  cogent  induce- 
ments to  it  might  be  drawn  from  their  earlier 
annals.  For  thereby  some  have  enter- 
tained angels  unawares.  Abraham,  Lot, 
etc.,  would  readily  occur  as  illustrations  of  this 
statement.  The  pith  of  the  thought  is  that  in 
entertaining  Christians  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
we  are  always  entertaining  angels,  or  rather 
him  who  is  exalted  infinitely  above  the  angels. 
"  I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  tooU  me  in."  Hos- 
pitality to  his  people  is  recognized  as  hospi- 
tality to  their  King. 

3.  Remember  (that  is,  with  kindness  and 
active  aid)  them  that  are  in  bonds,  as 
bound  with  them  —  those  who,  for  their 
fidelity  to  Christ,  are  subjects  of  persecution 
and  imprisonment.  This  phenomenon  was 
too  common  in  the  primitive  church  to  justify 
us  in  making  it  any  clue  to  the  destination  of 
the  Epistle.  The  measure  of  their  kindly  re- 
membrance is  to  be  'as  bound  with  them,'  as 
sharing  their  imprisonment.  Enter  into  their 
bondage  as  if  it  were  your  own;  bring  it  as 
near  to  your  sympathies  as  if  you  were  actual 
participants  in  it.  "I  was  in  prison,  and  ye 
came  unto  me."  Them  which  (who)  suffer 
outrage,  as  being  yourselves  also  in  the 
body — and  consequently  liable  to  the  same 
abuse.  The  consciousness  of  being  ourselves 
exposed  to  any  particular  form  of  suffering 
will  enhance  our  sympathj'  for  those  who  are 
already  enduring  it,  especially  when  precisely 
the  satne  causes  exist  in  us  which  have  brought 
indignity  and  outrage  upon  them.  The  appeal 
is  not  purely  to  our  natural  sympathies;  it 
involves  the  idea  that  we  may  experience  the 
same  sufferings  for  the  same  cause.  The  dis- 
tinction which  Delitzsch  draws  between  our 
sympathy  in  the  two  different  cases  as  spring- 
ing, the  one  from  spiritual,  the  other  from 
natural  fellowship  of  suffering,  seems  scarcely 


tenable.  "We  need  not  exclude  the  natural 
element  from  the  former,  nor  the  spiritual 
from  the  latter. 

4.  Marriage  is,  etc. — Let  marriage  be  in 
all  things  held  in  honor,  and  the  bed  icndefiled. 
That  the  passage  is  in  spirit  hortatory  cannot 
be  doubted.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  render 
it  so,  I  think,  even  though  we  may  grant  the 
actual  supplying  o^  the  imperative  (cVtoi)  un- 
wonted, and  perhaps  not  strictly  in  the  author's 
mind.  The  exhortation  seems  to  strike  at  the 
incipient  gnostic  asceticism  (i  Tim.  4:3)  on  the 
one  hand,  and  on  the  other  at  the  licentious- 
ness which,  while  seemingly  hostile,  is  really 
its  natural  accompaniment.  Whether  mar- 
riage is  to  be  held  in  honor,  and  hence  not 
disowned  by  a  transcendental  and  spurious 
piety,  or  held  in  honor,  and  hence  not  violated 
by  adulterous  passion,  might  be  doubtful. 
The  latter  might  .seem  rather  to  harmonize 
with  the  connection,  but  the  former,  as  ob- 
served above,  seems  also  to  have  been  in  the 
writer's  mind.  And  the  two  are  closely  allied; 
for  when  marriage  as  an  institution  is, /or  any 
reason,  thought  light  of,  it  will  soon  be  vio- 
lated by  lustful  passions.!  But  whoremong- 
ers (fornicators)  and  adulterers  God  will 
judge — in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which 
he  will  'judge  his  people'  ;  he  will  judge  the 
latter  for  vindication,  the  former  for  punish- 
ment. He  will  pronounce  sentence  upon  and 
condemn  them.  '  God '  (6  ded?)  placed  em- 
phatically last. 

5.  Let  your  conversation — Let  yotir  dis- 
position be  free  from  avarice,  being  contented 
with  what  ye  have.  Free  from  that  love  of 
money  which  is  a  root  of  all  evil  (i  Tim.6:  lo), 
and  drowr-5  men  in  destruction  and  perdition. 
'What  ye  have'  (ri  napovra),  the  present,  exist- 
ing things,  those  which  are  present  to  us,  with 
which  we  are  to  be  content,  without,  however, 
relaxing  our  labor,  and  feeling  an  honest  de- 
sire to  better  our  condition.     Man  is  false  to 


*  Taii^t,  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  tke  marriage  festival;  here,  the  marriage  relation. 


182 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


6  So  that  we  may  boldly  say,  The  Lord  is  my  helper, 
aud  I  will  not  fear  what  man  shall  do  unto  me. 

7  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you, 
M'ho  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God:  whose 
faith  follow,  considering  the  end  of  Ikeir  conversation. 

8  Jesus  Christ  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and 
for  ever. 

9  Be  not  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange  doc- 


6  in  any  wise  forsake  thee.    So  that  with  good  courage 
we  say, 

The  Lord  is  my  helper ;  I  will  not  fear : 
What  shall  man  do  unto  uie? 

7  Remember  them  who  had  the  rule  over  you,  who 
spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God  ;   and  considering 

8  the  issue  of  their  ilife,  imitate  their  faith.     Jesus 
Christ  is  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day,  yea  and  i  for 

9  ever.    Be  not  carried  away  by  divers  and  strange 


1  Gr.  manner  of  life 2  Gr.  unto  the  ages. 


his  reason  if  he  does  not  acquiesce  in  the 
present;  he  is  false  to  his  aspirations  and 
capacities  if  he  does  not  seek  for  better  in  the 
future. 

For  he  hath  himself  saifl^  I  will  not  fail 
thee,  nor  will  I  abandon  thee.  _  An  excellent 
argument,  but  where  has  God  said  this?  In 
various  passages  the  Old  Testament  gives 
half  of  it.  "I  will  not  leave  thee,  nor  neg- 
lect thee'  (Josh.  1:5);  '  I  will  not  abandon  thee' 
(oen. 28 :  15) ;  'I  will  not  abandon '  (isa. *i :  17),  are 
passages  which  express  the  idea,  and  the  words 
in  part,  but  not  wholly.  But  on  the  otlier 
hand,  Deut.  31  :  6  gives  us  almost  exactly  this 
language;  namely,  'He  will  not  leave  thee, 
nor  will  he  abandon  thee,'  but  not  as  spoken 
by  the  Lord,  but  as  spoken  of  the  Lord 
through  Moses.  That,  however,  which  God 
inspires  his  people  to  say  of  him  may  well  be 
regarded  as  said  by  himself.  There  seems, 
therefore,  no  objection  to  taking  this  as  sub- 
stantially the  direct  utterance  of  God.  The 
passage,  transformed  into  the  form  which  it 
assumes  here,  occurs  also  in  Philo.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  it  has  been  modified  a  little 
from  Deuteronomy  as  part  of  a  liturgical  ser- 
vice, and  thence  taken  by  our  author.  In 
any  case,  his  statement  is  true,  as  that  which 
God  has  inspired  his  servant  to  say  regarding 
his  relations  to  his  people,  he  may  be  justly 
said  to  sa.v  himself.  The  same  language,  how- 
ever, applied  in  the  same  way  by  Philo,  may 
indicate  that  it  had  passed  into  current  use  in 
this  form.  For  the  sentiment,  see  Matt.  6  :  28: 
"And  why  take  ye  thought  for  raiment,"  etc. 

6.  So  that  we  may  boldly  [confidently) 
say.  The  Lord  is  my  helper;  and  I  shall 
not  fear.  What  shall  man  do  unto  me  ?  From 
Ps.  118  :  6,  one  of  the  songs  of  praise  of  the 
Jewish  festivals.  The  sentiment,  generalized 
so  as  to  indicate  the  sufficiency  of  God  for  us 
in  all  respects,  and  reminding  the  readers  of 
God  as  a  helper  against  the  violence  of  man, 
prepares  the   way   for  the   mention  of  those 


Christian    leaders    who    have    attested    their 
fidelity  by  a  violent  death. 

7.  Remember  them  that  had  the  rule  over 
you  {your  leaders) — here,  apparently,  those 
who  are  dead — which  spake  unto  you  the  word 
of  God.  'To  speak  the  word  of  God'  [XaXilv 
Tov  Aoyov  ToC  0eou),  an  expression  used  by  Luke. 
(Acts  4 :  31 ;  8 :  25 ;  13 Tie.)  Considering  [contemplat- 
ing) the  issue  of  their  walk — the  end  of  their 
earthly  life,  which  the  author  avoids  designat- 
ing directly  by  death,  or  the  end  of  life,  but 
the  termination  of  their  Christian  walk  (avaa- 
Tpoi^ij,  as  often  elsewhere;  see  ovao-Tpec^eereat, 
10 :  33).  The  reference  is  perhaps  chiefly, 
though  not  exclusively,  to  martyrs  (as,  if  the 
readers  lived  in  Palestine,  Stephen,  James  the 
Apostle,  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  etc.); 
at  any  rate,  such  as  had  crowned  a  Christian 
life  with  a  happy  and  blessed  death.  Imitate 
their  faith,  and  like  them  be  faithful  unto 
death. 

8.  Jesus  Christ  [is)  the  same  yesterday, 
and  to  day  and  forever.  Christ  from  his 
ascension  is  forever  unchangeable;  a  practical 
truth  referring,  not  to  his  eternal  Sonship,  but 
to  his  unchangeable  nature  as  Redeemer  and 
Head  of  the  church.  As  such  his  claims  upon 
his  people  are  the  same  for  every  age.  "The 
same  obligation  which  lay  (m  the  martyrs  to 
follow  him  with  fidelity,  even  to  death,  rests  on 
you,"  says  the  writer,  "  will  rest  on  his  people 
for  all  time ;  and  the  rewards  also  are  sure  and 
abiding."  The  absolute  unchangeableness  of 
the  Head  of  the  church  suggests  the  perma- 
nent character  of  Christian  obligation  and 
reward.  Hence,  also,  the  following  injunc- 
tion. 

9.  Be  not  carried  about  (ted  aside)  by 
manifold  and  strange  teachings.  Not  prob- 
ably, as  understood  by  niany,  teachings  or 
doctrines  regarding  the  sacrificial  rites  and 
festivals  of  the  law,  and  especially  the  pass- 
over,  which,  however,  now  superseded  by  tho 
gospel,  would  still   be  hardly  designated   as 


ch.  xrii.] 


HEBREWS. 


183 


trines:  for  t7  is  a.  good  thing  that  the  heart  be  estab- 
lished with  grace;  uot  with  meats,  which  have  not 
protited  them  tliat  have  been  occupied  therein. 

10  We  liave  an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no  right  to 
eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle. 

11  For  the  bodie;;  of  those  beasts,  whose  blood  is 
brought  into  the  sanctuary  by  the  high  priest  for  sin, 
are  burned  without  the  cauip. 


teachings:   for  it  is  good  that  the  heart  be  stab- 
lished   by  grace;   not  liy  nieat.s,  wherein  they  that 

10  1  occupied  themselves  were  not  profited.  We  have 
an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no   right  to  eat  who 

11  serve  the  tabernacle.  Kor  the  bodies  of  those  beasts, 
whose  blood  is  brought  into  the  holy  place  ^liy  the 
high  priest  as  an  offering  for  sin,  are  burned  without 


I  Gr.  walked 2  Gr.  through. 


'manifold  and  strange  doctrines.'  These  ex- 
periences point  ratlier  to  subtle  and  casuis- 
tical innovations,  and  in  all  probability  to 
those  precepts  of  a  false  and  spurious  asceti- 
cism, which  in  the  later  period  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Epoch  were  already  creeping  into  the 
church,  and  which,  even  eaflier,  required 
Paul  to  declare  that  the  kingdom  of  God  con- 
sists not  in  "meat  and  drink,  but  in  righteous- 
ness, peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  (Rom. 
14:17.)  Theallusions  in  Paul's  Epistles  to  those 
casuistical  and  hair-splitting  distinctions  to 
the  "  ordinances  and  commandments  of  men," 
"Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not"  (coi. 2:20), 
to  the  rising  up  of  false,  corrupt  teachers,  who 
should  "command  to  abstain  from  meats 
which  God  hatK  created  to  be  received  with 
thanksgiving"  (1  T.m.  *:3, «),  show  what  symp- 
toms of  half  Judaizing,  half  gnosticising  here- 
sies were  already  developing  themselves  in 
the  church.  And  to  these  it  seems  in  the 
highest  degree  probable  (Tholuck,  Ebrard, 
Delitzsch,  Moll,  etc.)  that  the  writer  alludes. 
For  it  is  a  good  (excellent)  thing  that  the 
heart  be  established  with  (by)  grace — it 
is  grace  with  which  the  heart  should  be 
grounded  and  confirmed  in  the  Christian  life. 
Not  with  (by)  meats  by  which  they  that  were 
conversant  with  them  were  not  profited.  The^' 
drew  from  these  meats  (Ppul/xara,  things  eaten, 
food  in  which  they  sought  an  outward  and 
ritual  justification)  no  real  profit.  No  out- 
ward ceremonies  could  avail ;  not  the  food 
wiiich  goes  into  a  man,  but  the  thoughts 
which  issue  from  him,  have  power  to  defile  or 
purify.  Grace  alone,  working  eflSciently  in 
the  soul,  can  truly  establish  it  in  the  Christian 
life. 

(2)  Renewed  exhortations  against  apostasy. 
(10-21.) 

10.  We  have  an  altar  (emphasis  on  have, 
ixoiLtv) — 'an  altar,'  not  Christ  himself;  not 
that  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (as  Ebrard,  etc.), 
but  the  cross  on  Golgotha,  on  which  Christ 
was  offered  up.     Whereof  (/ro?n  which)  they 


have  no  right  {privilege)  to  eat  who  serve 
the  tabernacle.  The  mention  of  meats 
{Ppiiixara)  suggests  the  old  Levitical  rites,  the 
clean  and  unclean  animals  under  the  law, 
and  thus  prepares  for  the  mention  of  that  spir- 
itual food  which  Christians  are  permitted  to 
take  from  that  victim  which  wiis  offered  lipon 
the  Christian  altar.  This  victim  was  Christ; 
this  altar  was  his  cross.  Of  this  food  every 
Christian  may  and  must  eat;  his  flesh  and  hia 
blood  are  the  nourishment  of  his  people. 

U.  For  the  bodies  of  those  beasts  (ani- 
mals) whose  blood  is  brought  into  the 
sanctuary  by  the  high  priest  for  sin  (as 
an  atonement  for  sin)  are  burned  without 
the  camp  {encainpment).  Of  the  sin  offer- 
ings which  were  offered  by  the  Jewish  priests, 
Delitzsch  enumerates  several  of  which  certain 
portions  were  allotted  to  the  priests,  as  tlie 
he-goat  brought  by  the  prince,  and  the  goat  or 
sheep  of  the  ])rivate  person,  etc.  But,  from 
these  the  priests  of  the  law  were  excluded,  as 
the  sin  offering  of  the  high  priest  for  himself, 
that  of  the  congregation  in  several  cases  of 
unwonted  transgression,  and  especially  the 
combined  sacrifice  of  the  high  priest  and  the 
congregation  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement. 
In  these  cases  the  blood  of  the  victims  was 
borne  by  the  high  priest  into  the  sauctuary; 
in  the  last  one,  into  the  inner  sanctuary;  and 
the  fattest  pieces  were  consumed  on  the  altar, 
and  all  the  rest,  instead  of  being,  so  far  as 
might  be,  eaten  by  the  priests,  was  carried 
without  the  camp  into  the  desert,  and  there 
given  to  the  flames.  It  is  to  the  latter  of  these 
cases,  probably,  that  reference  is  here  specially 
made.  The  burning  of  the  sacrificial  animal 
is  regarded  as  typical,  and  as  the  Jewish  priest 
had  no  right  to  follow  the  victim  that  had 
been  offered  for  sin  out  into  the  desert,  so 
Christ,  having  been  rejected  from  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  (answering  to  the  ancient  encamp- 
ment), and  having  there  died  as  a  sin  offering, 
those  who  still  abide  in  the  tabernacle,  whostill 
adhere  to  Judaism,  have  nothing  to  do  with 


184 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


12  Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  j  12 
people  with  his  own  blood,  sult'ered  without  tlie  gate. 

13  Let  us  go  forth  therefore  unto  him  without  the  i  13 
camp,  bearing  his  reproach. 

14  For  here  have  we  no  continuing  city,  but  we  seek 
one  to  come. 

15  By  him  therefore  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise 
to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips,  giving 
thanks  to  bis  name. 


the  camp.  Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  might 
sanctify  the  people  through  his  own  blood,  suffered 
without  the  gate.  Let  us  therefore  go  forth  unto 
him  without  the  camp,  bearing  his  reproach.  For 
we  have  not  here  an  abiding  city,  but  we  seek  alter 
the  city  which  is  to  come.  Through  him  i  then  let  us 
offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually,  that 
is,  the  fruit  of  lips  which  make  confession  to  his 


1  Some  aucieDt  auttaoriiies  omit  then. 


him,  and  no  participation  in  him.  As  the 
priest  who  remained  in  the  temple  had  no 
right  to  follow  the  victim  without  the  pale  of 
the  encampment,  and  there  feast  on  its  flesh, 
so  those  who  abide  in  Judaism,  and  who  thus 
sanction  and  ratify  the  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion and  anathema  which  expelled  Christ  from 
the  city  and  made  him  a  sin  olFering,  have  no 
privilege  to  follow  him  forth  and  partake  the 
life-giving  banquet  of  his  flesh.  Their  adher- 
ence to  Judaism  cuts  them  off"  from  this  right. 
The  propriety  of  the  author's  comparison  maj' 
be  easily  traced.  The  blood  borne  by  the 
high  priest  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  symbolizes 
the  high-priestly  blood  which  Christ  bears 
into  the  heavenly  sanctuary ;  while  the  slaugh- 
ter of  the  victim  in  the  outer  court,  its  being 
olfered  on  the  altar,  and  the  final  burning  of 
the  carcass  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  camp,  | 
all  find  their  concentrated  representation  in  i 
the  one  offering  on  Golgotha.  The  richness  of  , 
the  antitype  enables  it  to  gather  and  express  | 
in  itself  the  fullness  of  various  tj'pes.  j 

12.  Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  ! 
might  sanctify  the  people  with  {by)  his 
own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate. 
The  '  wherefore  '  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  taken 
as  if  Jesus  suffered  in  this  way  in  order  to 
conform  to  this  symbol.  In  fact,  the  symbol 
was  pre-adapted  to  the  great  fact  which  it  was 
to  illustrate.  The  '  wherefore '  is  really  logical 
and  elliptical,  and  is  equivalent,  perhaps,  to 
this;  "for  which  reason  we  may  find  in  this  a 
parallel  to  the  case  of  our  Lord,"  etc.  As  the 
sin  offering  of  the  day  of  atonement  was 
finally  carried  without  the  camp  to  be  burned, 
so  Jesus  suffered  without  the  gate  of  the  city 
of  Jerusalem,  which  answers  to  the  ancient 
Jewish  encampment.  And  as  that  victim,  in 
its  sacrifice  and  burning,  effected  for  the  people 
a  ceremonial  cleansing,  so  the  sacrificed  body 
and  the  sprinkled  blood  of  Jesus  secures  for 
his  people  a  real  purification. 

13.  Therefore — inasmuch  as  Jesus  suffered 
without  the  gate,  and  inasmuch  as  we  cannot 


share  the  rich  benefits  of  his  atoning  death  so 
long  as  we  abide  in  the  precincts  of  Judaism 
— let  us  go  forth  to  him  without  the  camp 

— let  us  quit  the  camp  of  Judaism,  the  service 
and  the  ritual  by  which  so  long  as  we  abide 
we  cannot  share  the  benefits  of  his  sacrifice, 
cannot  feast  upon  that  passover  which  has 
been  slain  for  us,  but  which  we  continue  to 
regard  as  an  accursed  thing;  that  camp,  to 
remain  in  which  is  rejection  of  Ciirist,  to  go 
back  to  which  is  denial  of  Christ,  and  to  go 
forth  from  which  brings  us  into  participation 
and  union  with  Christ.  Bearing  his  re- 
proach— the  reproach  which  we  share  in 
common  with  him,  indignities  heaped  upon 
him,  and  which,  borne  by  us,  bring  us  into 
near  relation  to  him.  The  rejjroach  which  we 
bear  tlms  becomes  his  reproach.  Of  course, 
the  reproach  here  has  special  reference  to  the 
reproaches  and  insults  which  they  would  suffer 
in  turning  their  backs  on  Judaism.  The  writer 
thus  turns  back  once  more  to  that  subject  of 
which  his  mind  and  heart  are  full,  the  warn- 
ing of  his  brethren  against  relapsing  into 
Judaism.  With  this  the  next  sentence  beau- 
tifully connects  itself. 

14.  For  here  have  we — For  we  have  not 
here  an  abiding  city,  bid  we  seek  after 
that  which  is  to  be.  Why  linger  in  the 
earthly  Jerusalem  ?  It  is  not  our  true  and 
permanent  residence.  The  Jerusalem  which 
is  above,  which  hath  foundations,  the  city  of 
the  living  God,  the  mother  of  us  all — this  is 
that  which  we  seek,  and  the  present  Jerusa- 
lem, ther  fore,  shall  not  detain  us.  The  lan- 
guage is,  of  course,  symbolical.  The  earthly 
Jerusalem  represents  the  Judaistic  sj-stem,  of 
which  it  had  been  so  long  the  seat ;  the  heav- 
enly Jerusalem  represents  the  freedom  and 
spiritual  blessings  of  the  gospel.  The  capital 
of  the  Old  Testament  Theocracy  is  not  the 
capital  of  that  kingdom  in  which  is  our  citi- 
zenship, and  which  is  tt>  remain  unshaken. 

15.  By  him  therefore — through  him,  then 
(with  a  special  emphasis  on  Aim;  througli  him, 


Ch.  XIIL] 


HEBREWS. 


186 


16  But  to  do  good  and  to  commuDicate  forget  not:  I  16  name.    But  to  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget 
for  with  such  sacrifices  Goit  is  well  pleased.  |        not:   for  with  such  sacrifices  (jod  is  well   pleased. 

17  Obey  theiu  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  sub-     17  Obey  them  who  liave  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit 
uiit  yourselves:  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  to  them  :  for  they  watch  iu  behalf  of  your  souls,  as 


that  must  give  account,  that  they  may  do  it  with  joy, 
and  not  with  grief:  for  that  is  uni)rotitable  for  you 


they  that  shall  give  account;  that  they  may  do  thi 
with  joy,  and  not  with  'grief:   lor  this  were  unpro- 
fitable for  yoH. 


1  6r.  groaning. 


as  the  great  sacrifice  and  High  Priest  of  the 
New  Covenant,  not  through  the  rites  of  Ju- 
daism— let  us  offer  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God 
'continually,'  and  not  at  distant  intervals. 
'A  sacrifice  of  praise,'  spiritual,  however,  and 
not  an  animal  sacrifice,  like  the  thank-  or 
praise-offerings  (Svaia.  cifeo-to)?,  Lev.  7  :  12-15) 
of  the  Old  Testament  ritual.  In  the  Psalms 
(116:17:50:14)  this  praise-  or  thank-offering  is 
the  symbol  of  the  gratitude  of  the  heart  and 
of  the  lips;  and  among  the  traditionary 
maxims  of  the  synagogue  (Delitzsch)  is  one 
that,  '  In  future  all  other  sacrifices  cease;  but 
tlie  sacrifice  of  praise  (the  thank-offering) 
ceases  not.' 

The  author  explains  this  sacrifice  of  praise, 
this  spiritual  thank-offering— <Aai  is,  the  fruit 
of  lips  which  make  confession  (acknowledg- 
inent)  of  his  name.  Hosea  14  :  2  probably 
suggests  the  language  here  used,  "And  we 
will  render  to  him  in  return  the  fruit  of  our 

lips  "   (beptuagint,  xai  <i»'Tajro6cu<ro^c»'  xap-nov  xiiKfrnv 

riiiuiv).  The  fruit  of  the  lips  means  the  words, 
which  have  their  roots,  so  to  speak,  in  the 
heart,  which  spring  up  and  germinate  in 
thoughts,  as  the  branches,  and  burst  forth 
through  the  lips  in  words,  as  the  flowers  and 
fruits. 

But  along  with  our  sacrifices  of  praise,  the 
utterance  of  our  lips,  we  must  render  other 
offerings  also  ;  namely,  beneficence  and  liber- 
ality. 

16.  But  to  do  good,  etc.— But  doing  good 
and  com.municating,  forget  not.  "  I  will  have 
mercy  ;"  that  is,  I  desire  the  exercise  of  mercy, 
says  God,  "and  not  sacrifice."  The  sacrifices 
of  God  are  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart  and 
penitent  feelings,  expressing  themselves  in 
acts  of  love  and  beneficence.  For  with 
such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased.  The 
blood  of  victims  is  valued  by  him  only  as  an 
act  of  obedience  and  as  a  symbol ;  beneficence 
and  mercy  are  intrinsically  excellent,  and 
always  well  pleasing. 

17.  Obey  them,  etc.  —  Field  obedience  to 


those  who  lead  you,  and  be  submissive  (sub- 
mit) to  them.  The  rulers  of  the  church  or 
churches  addressed  probably  stood  firm  in  the 
faith,  and  very  possibly  deplored  the  symptoms 
of  half-heartedness  and  apostasy  which  dis- 
closed themselves  in  their  brethren.  It  is  not, 
however,  necessary  to  assume  anything  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  these  particular 
spiritual  leaders.  Submission  to  spiritual  as 
to  temporal  authority ;  respect  and  deference 
to  age  and  authority — were  the  general  duties 
enjoined  on  the  New  Testament  churches; 
and  the  present  injunction  may  only  be  in  the 
spirit  of  that  general  obligation.  They  were 
exhorted  to  obey  {vfCeeaee),  and  to  concede, 
yield  to  them,  even  when  their  requirements 
may  cross  their  own  views  or  feelings.  For 
they  ('they' — emphatic,  avroC — they  are  the 
ones  who,  they  as  a  class ;  thus  not  designat- 
ing so  much  the  character  of  the  individual 
leaders,  but  the  obligations  and  functions  of 
the  oflBce)  watch — exercise  sleepless  vigilance 
(oypvir»'o0(7-i) — for  (on  behalf  of )  your  souls — 
for  their  well  being  and  salvation;  as  hav- 
ing to  render  in  an  account.  The  classical 
phrase  (Aoyoi'  a-no&ovvai.),  to  render  a  reason,  or 
render  an  account  of  one's  opinions  or  one's 
conduct.  When  the  Great  Shepherd  shall  ap- 
pear, these  under  shepherds  will  be  expected 
and  required  to  render  to  him  an  account  of 
the  flock  committed  to  their  charge. 

That  they  may  do  it,  etc. — In  order  that 
with  joy  they  may  do  this  and  not  grieving. 
This  'in  order  that'  assigns  a  motive  for  their 
obedience;  namely,  that  they  may  (not,  render 
their  account,  but)  exercise  their  watchful  ctire 
— for  to  this  the  '  do  this '  refers ;  '  with  joy '  — 
that  is,  in  view  of  the  success  of  their  min- 
istry, and  not  sighing  over  its  un fruitful ness. 
Disobedience  and  refractoriness  on  the  part  of 
the  church,  would  tend  to  frustrate  all  the 
faithful  labors  and  watchcare  of  their  spiritual 
overseers.  For  this  is  unprofitable  for  you — 
that  is,  changing  the  negative' into  the  positive 
idea;  injurious,  productive  of  evil.     The  ex- 


186 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


18  Pray  for  us:  for  we  trust  we  have  a  good  con- 
science, iu  all  things  willing  to  liv«  honestly. 

19  But  1  beseech  you  the  rather  to  do  this,  that  I  may 
be  restored  to  you  the  sooner. 

20  Now  the  God  of  peace,  that  brought  again  from 
the  dead  our  Lord  .Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the 
sheep,  through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant, 


18  Pray  for  us :  for  we  are  persuaded  that  we  have  a 
good  conscience,  desiring  to  live  honourably  in  all 

19  things.     And  I  exhort  you  the  more  exceedingly  to 
do  this,  that  I  may  be  restored  to  you  the  sooner. 

20  Now  the  God  of  peace,  who  brought  again  from 
the  dead  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep  '  with  the 


1  Or,  hy.    Gr.  in. 


pression  is  a  litotes,  designedly  saying  less  than 
is  meant. 

18.  Pray  for  us.  Whether  the  author  here 
uses  the  plural  for  the  singular  (Bleek,  Liine- 
mann,  etc. ),  or  includes  with  himself  his  fellow 
laborers  among  the  Hebrew  Christians,  it  is 
not  easy  to  decide.  Perhaps  the  latter  is  more 
probable.  For  we  trust  we  have  a  good 
conscience.  On  this  ground  he  can  confi- 
dently ask  for  their  prayers ;  as,  knowing 
that  they  have  honest  and  upright  purposes 
in  the  sight  of  God,  they  furnish  the  moral 
conditions  required  for  hoping  for  the  divine 
blessing,  and  under  which  the  prayers  of  the 
saints  for  them  nay  prove  effectual.  A  hyp- 
ocrite cannot  otherwise  than  hypocritically 
ask  others  to  pray  for  him.  The  'trusting' 
that  we  have  a  good  conscience  is  the  lan- 
guage of  that  proper  self-distrust,  which, 
aware  of  the  deceitfulness  of  the  heart,  will 
not  take  its  own  moral  consciousness  as  final 
and  positive  proof  of  rectitude.  '  We  trust 
we  have  a  good  conscience.'  God  way  judge 
U8  more  deeply  and  correctly.  In  all  things 
willing  (rvishing)  to  live  honestly  (conduct 
ourselves  honorably).  The  natural  emphasis 
on  'wishing'  (fleAoi/Tts) implies  a  certain  modest 
spirit  of  self-defense,  as  if  he  and  his  fellow- 
laborers  had  to  encounter  suspicion  and  re- 
proach on  the  part  of  the  Hebrew  churches. 
'We  trust,^  says  he,  'we  have  a  good  con- 
science'— it  is  our  wish  in  all  things  to  deport 
ourselves  honorably.  Imperfect  as  may  be 
our  action,  we  have,  at  least,  upright  and 
honorable  aims.  The  specific  idea  may  be 
that  they  have  no  desire  to  trample  on  Jewish 
prejudices,  to  break  away  from  Jewish  re- 
straints, but  to  proceed  in  all  things,  as  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentiles,  with  caution  and 
due  consideration. 

19.  But  I  beseech  you  the  rather  {the 
■more  abundantly  —  more  earnestly)  to  do 
this;  namely,  to  pray  for  us;  and,  more  es- 
pecially, of  course,  for  me — that  I  may  be 
the  inore  quickly  restored  to  you.  From 
this  some  have  inferred  that  the  author  was 


now  in  prison,  though  by  no  means  with  cer- 
tainty. Innumerable  otlier  hindrances  be- 
sides this  may  have  demanded  their  prayers; 
and  were  he  in  prison,  we  might  naturally 
expect  (though  this,  also,  in  the  great  brev- 
ity of  personal  reference,  is  by  no  means 
certain)  that  he  would  be  more  explicit 
regarding  it.  The  most  which  we  can  infer 
with  confidence,  is  that  the  writer  has  stood  in 
important,  and  still  stood  in  kindly  relations, 
to  the  church  or  churches  addressed;  that 
he  was  consciously  a  person  of  consideration 
among  them,  and  was  either  expecting  or  ex- 
pected to  rejoin  them  at  some  distant  period. 
On  the  whole,  the  allusion  is  too  slight  and 
vague  to  furnish  any  satisfactory  clue,  either 
to  the  author  or  to  the  recipients  of  the 
Epistle. 

20,  'i\,  A  beautiful  and  magnificent  form 
of  benediction:  one  whose  exceeding  solemnity 
might  suggest  the  idea  that  the  author  regarded 
himself  as  near  his  departure  from  earth. 

Now  {and  may)  the  (iod  of  peace — appro- 
priately so  designated  with  reference  to  his 
desire  that  they  may  be  delivered  from  the 
turmoil  and  conflicts  of  false  doctrine,  and  be 
established  in  the  calm  and  peaceful  faith  and 
doctrines  of  the  gospel — who  brought  again 
{back)  from  the  dead  the  Great  Shepherd 
of  the  sheep,  and  as  he  thus  dissolved  the 
bands  of  death  to  bring  up  the  Great  Shepherd 
and  restore  him  to  his  church,  can  rend  asun- 
der any  bands  which  hold  the  under  shepherds 
away  from  their  folds.  (1)  Here  only  in  the 
Epistle  the  writer  alludes  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  Lord.  Elsewhere  his  view  has  alter- 
nated between  his  humiliation  in  the  flesh,  and 
atoning  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  and  his  heavenly 
exaltation  and  high  priesthood  in  the  upper 
sanctuary.  Here  the  fact  of  the  resurrection 
comes  in  naturally  and  beautifully  between 
these  two,  and  cotnpletes  the  recognition  in 
the  Epistle  of  all  the  grand  epochs  or  periods 
in  the  Redeemer's  life;  his  pre-existent,  eter- 
nal Sonship,  his  creative  agency,  his  incarna- 
tion, his  suffering  life,  bis  death,  his  resurrec- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


HEBREWS. 


187 


21  Make  you  perfect  in  every  good  work  to  do  his 
will,  working  in  you  that  wliicb  is  well  pleasing  in  his 
sight,  through  Jesus  Christ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever 
and  ever.     Amen. 

22  And  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  suffer  the  word  of 
exhortation:  for  1  have  written  a  letter  unto  you  in 
few  words. 


blood  of  an  eternal  covenant,  even  our  Lord  Jesus, 

21  make  you  perfect  in  every  good  '  thing  to  do  his 
will,  working  in  2  us  that  which  is  well-pleasing  in 
his  sight  through  Jesus  (.hrist;  to  whom  be  the 
glory  "  for  ever  and  ever.     Amen. 

22  But  I  exhort  you,  brethren,  bear  with  the  word  of 
exhortation  :   for  I   have  written    unto  you  in    le* 


1  Mauy  aacieni  auihnrUUs  read  work 2  Maoj-  aucieot  authorities  read  you 3  Or.  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages. 


tion  and  ascension  (for  really  both  of  these  are 
contained  in  the  bringing  back,  avayayiov),  and 
liis  glorification.  (2)  The  expression  here  may 
perhaps  be  referred  back  to  Isa.  63  :  11 : 
'■  Where  is  he  who  brought  up  out  of  the  sea 
tiie  shepherd  of   the  sheep?"     (Septuagint, 

jroO  o  avafiipdaai  ex  t^!  0oAd(7(rrj9  Toi'  woinei'a  Ta>i'  jrpo/Sd- 

TU.I/. )  As  Moses,  then,  tiie  shepherd  of  the  flock 
of  Israel,  was  brought  up  out  of  the  Red  Sea, 
so  Christ,  the  Great  Shepherd,  is  brought  up 
out  from  the  dead.  (3)  The  clause  also  reminds 
the  readers  of  the  one  Shepherd,  from  whose 
fold  they  are  not  to  stray. 

Through  (in)  the  blood  of  the  (an)  ever- 
la.sting  covenant.  Whether  this  is  depend- 
ent on  the  participle  'brought back'  (ivayayuiv), 
or  the  adjective  'great'  (fi6'7as),andtli  us  whether 
it  declares  that  Christ  was  brought  back  in  the 
blood,  etc.,  or  is  a  Great  Shepherd  in  the  blood, 
is  a  point  on  which  expositors  are  divided. 
Each  is  grammatically  possible,  and  each  is 
unexceptionable  in  sense.  It  was  'in'  (here 
equivalent  to,  by  virtue  of,  so  better  than 
'with,'  Calvin,  Bleek,  etc.,  'in'  as  denoting 
accompaniment),  the  blood  of  an  eternal  cove- 
nant, that  Christ  became  a  spiritual  Head  and 
and  the  Shepherd  of  his  people :  it  was  in  vir- 
tue of  that  same  blood  that  God  brought  him 
back  from  among  the  dead.  I  scarcely  see  a 
ground  of  deciding  between  them.  Our  Lord 
Jesus — Jesus  is  his  name  as  dying,  or  as  ascend- 
ing and  rejoicing.  The  one  is  the  designation 
of  affection,  the  other  of  reverence.  The  one 
points  to  his  love  in  dying  for  his  people,  the 
other  to  his  power  to  protect  and  glorify  them. 

Make  you  perfect'  in  every  good  work, 
in  order  that  ye  m.ay  do  his  will.  The  doing 
of  God's  will  is  dependent  on  his  fashioning 
and  perfecting  them  in  every  good  work.  God 
works  in  advance  of  man.  As  he  chooses  his 
people  before  they  choose  him,  so  he  must 
work  in  them  the  work  of  faith  with  power, 
before  they  will  work  to  do  his  will.  Work- 
ing (accomplishing)  in  you  that  which  is 
well  pleasing  in  his  sight  through  Jesus 


Christ — transforming  your  natures,  bestowing 
on  you  those  gifts  of  his  grace  which  work 
renovation  in  your  hearts,  and  this  through 
Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  all  spiritual  influ- 
ences are  bestowed,  and  all  sanctifying  work 
wrought. 

To  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen.  To  whom  ;  namely,  to  Christ  the 
subject  immediately  preceding;  or  to  God  the 
principal  subject  of  the  entire  period  ?  Either 
reference  is  grammatical,  either  would  be  in 
accordance  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Epistle,  as 
of  the  entire  New  Testament.  "  To  him  who 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
own  blood."  The  sentence,  however,  is  cer- 
tainly better  rounded  and  more  complete 
in  its  rhetorical  structure  if  the  thought  re- 
turns at  the  close  to  its  original  starting  point, 
and  if  making  a  somewhat  fuller  pause  after 
Christ,  we  refer  the  '  to  whom,'  back  to  '  God.' 

(3)  Final  injunctions,  pei'sonal  references 
and  salutations.     (22-25. ) 

22.  And  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  suffer 
(bear  with)  the  word  of  exhortation.  This  is 
the  second  instance  (seever.  19)  of  the  author's 
use  of  the  first  person  singular  in  the  entire 
Epistle.  This  is  so  totally  at  variance  with  the 
universal  character  of  the  acknowledged  Paul- 
ine epistles,  that  of  itself  it  goes  far  to  decide 
against  the  Pauline  authorship  of  this.  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  that  full,  overflowing, 
impetuous  nature,  everywhere  else  breathing 
out  so  lavishly  and  warmly  its  individual  feel- 
ings and  sentiments,  could  here  have  put  upon 
them  so  strict  a  rein.  The  reference  here  is 
undoubtedly,  not  merely  to  the  more  strictly 
hortatory  parts  of  the  Epistle,  but  to  the  entire 
discussion,  which  is  itself  one  grand  exhorta- 
tion. The  Epistle  has  a  strictly  practical  pur- 
pose throughout.  Its  argument  is  closely 
interwoven  with  its  admonitions,  and  all  alike 
are  Intended  to  rescue  its  readers  from  im- 
pending apostasy.  For  the  phrase  '  word  of 
exhortation,'  see  Acts  13  :  15.  For  I  have 
written— /or  also   with   brevity  have  I  writ- 


*  Kara^i^u  to  frame,  construct,  JU,  fashion. 


188 


HEBREWS. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


28  Know   ye  that   our  brother    Timothy  is   set  at 
liberty  ;  with  whom,  if  he  come  shortly,  I  will  see  you. 

■-'4  iSalute  all  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and 
all  the  saints.    They  of  Italy  salute  you. 

25  (jrace  be  with  you  all.     Amen. 
K  Written  to  the  Hebrews  from  Italy  by  Timothy. 


23  words.  Know  ye  that  our  brother  Timothy  hath 
been  set  at  liberty ;  with  whom,  if  he  come  shortly, 
1  will  see  you. 

24  Salute  all  them  who  have  the  rule  over  you,  and 
all  the  saints,    i  They  of  Italy  salute  you. 

25  Grace  be  with  you  all.    Amen. 


1  Or,  The  brethren  from. 


ten  to  you.  'For  also'  (ical  yap)  designating 
here  perhaps  an  additional  reason,  besides  the 
weighty  intrinsic  considerations,  why  they 
should  favorably  receive  his  Epistle.  "  Much 
as  I  had  to  say  I  have  written  with  all  possible 
brevity  ;  I  have  condensed  my  matter,  in  order 
not  to  be  burdensome,  into  the  smallest  possi- 
ble compass."  None  can  read  this  Epistle 
carefully  without  being  sensible  of  the  entire 
justness  of  this  statement.  Considering  the 
number  sind  magnitude  of  the  topics  treated, 
it  is  a  marvel  of  brevity  and  condensation. 
This  of  itself,  placed  alongside  of  the  diffusive- 
ness of  the  post-apostolic  writers,  indicates  the 
inspiration  of  the  Epistle.  Nothing  can  exceed 
its  pregnant  and  most  suggestive 'conciseness. 
Every  clause  might  be  expanded  into  a  chap- 
ter, every  chapter  into  a  volume. 

23.  Know  ye  that  our  brother  Timothy 
is  {hath  been)  set  at  liberty.  Some,  instead 
of  'know,'  render  as  indicative,  'ye  know,' 
but  probably  incorrectly.  De  "Wette  urges 
that  if  it  were  imperative,  tbe  author,  wishing 
to  give  information,  would  have  been  more 
explicit ;  but  this  is  pure  conjecture.  He 
might  only  wish  to  say  exactly  this,  assum- 
ing that  what  else  might  appertain  to  the 
matter  was  either  already  known,  or  soon 
would  be,  as  be  anticipates  a  speedy  visit  to 
them,  both  oT  Timothy  and  himself.  'Hath 
been  set  at  liberty.'  From  this  we  may  infer 
that  Timothy  had  been  probably  imprisoned, 
though  of  this  we  elsewhere  know  nothing. 
If  this  imprisonment  was  at  Rome,  then  the 
writer  of  this  could  scarcely  be  at  Rome,  un- 
less we  take  the  'if  he  come  quickly,' of  Tim- 
othy'scoming  to  them  (which,  indeed,  Ithink 
very  possible)  rather  than  of  his  coming  to 
him.  It  would  seem  to  mark  an  epoch  in  the 
life  of  Timothy  later  than  any  of  Paul's  epis- 
tles, and  therefore,  I  think,  after  the  death  of 
the  great  apostle.  If,  as  Alford  supposes,  the 
Epistle  was  sent  to  Jewish  Chrii^tians  in  Rome, 
then  Timothy  could  not  have  been  imprisoned 
there. 

Some  render,  instead  of  'set  at  liberty' 
{airoKtXviiivov),   'sent  away,'    'despatched' — as 


Luke  uses  the  word  (acu  is  :  3;  15 :  so),  of  oflBcial 
sending  forth — that  is,  either  with  this  letter 
to  you,  or  elsewhere;  and  in  accordance 
with  this  supposition  is  the  traditionary  sub- 
scription of  the  letter,  "Written  to  the  He- 
brews from  Italy  through  Timothy."  As  the 
word  will  bear  this  meaning,  then,  on  the 
supposition  that  Timothy  had  not  been  im- 
prisoned, and  that  he  had  now  gone  as  the 
bearer  of  this  Epistle,  the  word  would  be  its 
own  interpreter,  and  nothing  more  would  be 
needed.  If  Timothy  was  sent  in  any  other 
direction,  something  would  seem  necessary  to 
be  added,  in  order  to  make  its  import  clear. 
Under  these  circumstances,  while  '  set  at 
liberty'  is  the  more  natural  rendering,  yet 
it  seems  impossible,  to  arrive  at  any  certain 
conclusion.  That,  however,  Timothy  could 
not  have  been  now  sent  with  this  Epistle  to 
them,  seems  to  follow  from  the  next.  With 
whom,  if  he  come  shortly  {quickly),  I 
will  see  you.  This  certainly  would  seem 
unnatural,  though  not  impossible,  to  be  said, 
in  case  Timothy  was  now  gone  on  a  mission  to 
the  churches  with  this  Epistle.  It  therefore 
much  more  probably  refers  to  an  imprison- 
ment from  which  Timothy  had  now  been  re- 
leased, and  in  consequence  of  which,  coming 
to  the  writer,  they  were  together  to  visit  these 
Christians.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  evi- 
dence, slight  as  it  is,  tends  to  show  that  the 
Epistle  is  post-Pauline.  Nothing  more,  how- 
ever, and  not  even  that  can  with  certainty  be 
drawn  from  it.  The  'if  he  shall  come  very 
quickly,'  is,  probably,  'if  he  come  to  me,' 
and  not,  'if  he  come  to  you';  and  yet  this 
latter  is  very  possible.  But  in  either  case, 
how  the  speediness  of  Timothy's  coming  was 
to  affect  the  movements  of  the  author,  remains 
entirely  in  the  dark. 

24.  Salute  all  them  that  have  the  rule 
over  {lead  of)  you,  and  all  the  saints — 
alike  officers  of  the  church  and  private  breth- 
ren ;  the  whole  body  of  Christians  with  whom 
they  might  stand  in  any  connection.  They 
of  (from)  Italy  salute  you.  This  phrase 
again  fails  to  give  any  decisive  clue  to  the 


Ch.  XIII.] 


HEBREWS. 


189 


locality  either  of  the  writer  or  receivers  of 
the  Epistle.  The  phrase  'those  from  Italy' 
(oi  airb  T^s  "iToAias)  most  naturally  denotes  those 
who  belong  to  a  certain  place  or  country,  but 
are  now  distant  from  it,  as  "the  Jews  from 

Asia"  — oi    ttTTO    rrii    'A<rias    'lovSaloi    (Acts  21:  27) — 

namely,  the  Jews  who  belonged  to,  and  came 
from,  Asia.  It  may,  however,  be  equivalent 
to  '  those  who  belong  to  Italy  '  (oi  «  Tijs  'iraAias) 
and  dwell  there;    as  Acts  17:  12,    "those  of 

Thessalonica"    {ol  anb  rrn  QeaaaXoviKrii) .      Thus, 

then,  here  the  phrase  would  most  naturally 
mean,  judged  simply  by  itself,  'those  from 
Italy,'  who  are  in  another  country ;  and  this 
would  mark  the  locality  of  the  writer  as  out 
of  Italy,  and  the  probable  destination  of  the 
Epistle  as  to  Italian  Christians,  to  whom  their 
distant   countrymen   send  greeting.      But  it 


may  also  denote  those  that  belong  to  Italy 
and  dwell  there;  and  thus  mark  the  writer  as 
now  dwelling  in  Rome,  or  some  other  part  of 
Italy,  and  sending  their  greetings  to  churches 
elsewhere.  Thus  the  utmost  that  it  certainly 
proves  is  that  either  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
was  in  Italy,  or  its  recipients  were;  and  judg- 
ing the  phrase  simply  by  itself,' the  latter 
would  be  the  more  probable;  but  if  it  could 
be  made  out  with  any  certainty  that  it  was 
addressed  to  Christians  in  Palestine  or  else- 
where, then  it  would  be  pretty  clear  that  the 
Epistle  originated  in  Italy.  This  is  made 
much  more  probable  by  the  fact  that  the 
Epistle  was  so  long  unknown  to  the  Western 
churches,  which  seems  inexplicable  if  it  had 
been  originally  addressed  to  Roman  or  Italian 
Jewish  Christians. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.  D. 


1  Fragmentarily  and  diversely  ^  God,  having  of  old  spoken  unto  our  fathers 

2  in  the  prophets,  hath  in  the  close  of  these  days  spoken  unto  us  in  his  Son,''  whom 

3  he  hath  appointed  inheritor  of  all  things :  by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds ;'  who, 
being  the  effulgence  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  substance,  and 
sustaining  all  things  with  the  mandate  of  his  power,  after  making  a  cleansing  of 

4  sins,  took  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  Majesty  in  the  lofty  *  [heavens],  becom- 
ing ^  so  much  superior  to  the  angels,  as  he  hath  inherited  a  name  transcending 

5  theirs.     For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time, 

Thou  art  my  Son  ; 
To  day  have  I  begotten  thee? 
and  again, 

I  will  be  to  him  a  Father, 
And  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son  ? 

6  And  when  he  shall  bring  back  into  the  inhabited  world  the  Firstborn,  he 

7  saith,®  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.  And  while  in  respect  to  the 
angels  he  saith, 

Who  maketh  his  angels  (messengers)  winds, 
And  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire  : 

8  [He  saith]  in  respect  to  the  Son, 

Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever ; 

The  sceptre  of  rectitude  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom. 

9  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity ; 
Therefore,  O  God,  thy  God  '  hath  anointed  thee 
With  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows. 


10  And, 


Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  didst  lay  the  foundations  of  the  earth, 
And  the  works  of  thine  hands  are  the  heavens. 


1  Fragmentarily,  as  to  substance :  diversely ^ 
as  to  mode.  Or,  in  many  portions  and  many 
modes. 

*  Greek,  "Ec  y;<?.  The  absence  of  the  article 
emphasizing  the  character. 

*  Or,  ages. 

*  'Zv  vipri\oli  belongs  in  construction  to  ^(taflKrfv. 

*  rivo}Mevoi,  not.  being  made,  as  Common  Ver- 
sion, nor,  having  become,  as  Revised  Version, 
nor,   having  proved   himself,  as  Farrar:    but 


becoming  (the  simplest  and  most  natural  ren- 
dering of  the  participle);  i.  e.,  thus  in  his 
outward  exaltation  reaching  the  position  that 
corresponded  with  his  measureless  intrinsic 
dignity.  He  thus  became  outwardly  and 
entirely  what  he  was  already  in  his  essential 
nature. 

•  Proleptic,  equivalent  to,  will  say. 

'  Or,  Ood,  thy  God. 


191 


192 


TRANSLATION. 


[Ch.  II. 


11  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  continuest : 
And  they  all  as  a  garment  will  grow  old ; 
And  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  roll  them  up, 
And  they  shall  be  changed.' 

12  But  thou  art  the  same, 
And  thy  years  shall  not  fail. 

13  And  in  re.«pect  to  which  of  the  angels  hath  he  said  at  any  time, 

Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand, 

Until  I  shall  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ?  "^ 

14  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits  sent  forth  to  render  service  for  the  sake  of 
them  that  are  to  inherit  salvation  ? 

2       For  this  cause  we  ought  the  more  earnestly  to  give  heed  to  the  things  which 

2  have  been  heard,^  lest,  perchance,  we  drift  away  from  them.  For  if  the  word 
which  was  spoken  through  angels  proved  stedfast,  and  every  transgression  and 

3  neglect  received  a  rightful  recompense,  how  shall  we  escape  after  neglecting  so 
great  a  salvation  ?  which  having  at  the  beginning  been  spoken  through  the 

4  Lord,  was  by  them  that  heard  him  confirmed  unto  us,  God  bearing  them  joint 
attestation  alike  with  signs,  and  portents,  and  various  acts  of  power,  and  im- 
partings  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  his  will. 

5  For  not  unto  angels  did  he  put  in  subjection  the  coming  world  concerning 

6  which  we  are  speaking.     But  one  in  a  certain  place  testified,  saying. 

What  is  a  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ; 
Or  a  son  of  man  that  thou  regardest  him  ? 

7  Thou  didst  lower  him  some  little  below  the  angels  ; 
With  glory  and  honor  didst  thou  crown  him  ; 
[Thou  didst  set  him  over  the  works  of  thy  hands  ;] 

8  Thou  didst  subject  all  things  beneath  his  feet. 

For  in  subjecting  to  him  all  things,  he  left  nothing  unsubjected  to  him.     But 

9  as  it  is,  we  do  not  yet  see  all  things  subjected  to  him.  But  him  who  hath  been 
for  some  little  made  lower  than  the  angels,  even  Jesus,  we  behold,  because  of 
his  suflTering  of  death  crowned  with  glory  and  honor,  that,  by  the  grace  of  God, 

10  he  might,  on  behalf  of  every  man,*  taste  of  death.     For  it  was  befitting  him, 
because  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  through  whom  are  all  things  to  render,  as 


»  So  Tiscbendorf,  Ed.  8.  Westcottand  Hort, 
after  X  A  B  r^ad,  "As  a  garment,  and  they 
shall  be  changed."  Or,  "As  a  garment  also 
shall  they  be  changed."  The  reading  would 
seem  to  be  from  some  MS.  error. 

«  Literally,  The  footstool  of  thy  feet. 

'  Toi«  o<cov(T9«r<ri,  literally,  the  things  which 
were  heard,  answering  to,  oi  \akTi\9ivTt^,  which 
were  spoken. 


*  Pregnant  construction  apparently  equiva- 
lent to,  that  the  death  which  he  had  taste! 
might  be  for  the  benefit  of  every  man — that 
is,  of  universal  humanity.  So  somewhat  simi- 
larly 1  Peter  4:6.  "  The  gospel  was  preached 
to  the  dead,  that  they  might  be  juilged,  in- 
deed," equivalent  to,  "although  they  had  been 
judged,  etc.,  they  might  live,  etc." 


Ch.  III.]  TRANSLATION.  193 

one  bringing  many  sons  unto  glory,  the  Leader  of  their  salvation  perfect  through 

11  sufferings.     For  both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they  that  are  sanctified  are  all 

12  from  One  : '  for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren,  saying, 

I  will  announce  thy  name  unto  my  brethren  ; 
In  the  midst  of  the  congregation  I  will  sing  praise  to  thee. 
And  again, 

I  will  put  my  trust  in  him : 

13  And  again, 

Behold,  I  and  the  children  that  God  gave  to  me. 

14  Since  therefore  the  children  have  shared  in  blood  and  flesh,  he  himself  also 
similarly  took  part  in  the  same  ;  that  through  death  he  may  destroy  him  that 

15  hath  the  dominion  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and  may  deliver  those  who 

16  through  fear  of  death  are,  through  all  their  lifetime,  subjects  of  bondage.  For 
it  is  not,  in  sooth,*  angels  of  whom  he  cometh  to  the  rescue,  but  he  rescueth  the 

17  seed  of  Abraham.  Whence  it  behooved  him  to  be  in  all  things  assimilated  to 
his  brethren,  that  he  may  prove  himself  merciful  and  a  faithful  high  priest  in 

18  things  relating  to  God,  to  make  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  For 
wherein  he  hath  himself  suffered  being  tempted,'  he  is  able  to  succor  them 
that  are  tempted. 

3       Wherefore,  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling,  contemplate  the 

2  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our  confession,  Jesus,  as  one  who  was  faithful  to  him 

3  that  made  him,*  as  was  also  Moses  in  all  His  house.     For  he  hath  been  deemed 
woi'thy  of  more  glory  than  Moses,  by  how  much  more  honor  than  the  house 

4  hath  he  who  established  it.     For  every  house  is  established  by  some  one  ;  ^  but 

5  he  who  established  all  things  is  God.     And  Moses,  indeed,  was  faithful  in  all 
His  house  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony  to  that  which  was   hereafter  to   be 

6  spoken  ;  but  Christ  as  a  Son  over  His  house ;  whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold 
fast  unto  the  end  our  confidence,  and  the  glorying  of  our  hope. 

7  Wherefore,  according  as  saith  the  Holy  Spirit, 

8  To-day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice, 

Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation  ; 
In  the  day  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness : 

9  Where  your  fathers  tempted  me  in  making  pi-oof  of  me. 
And  saw  my  works  during  forty  years : 

10  Wherefore  I  was  angry  with  this  generation  ; 


»  'One,'  that  is,  Father. 

*A)j  irou,  a  light  and  often  slightly  ironical 
particle  of  affirmation,  "  Von  knoio  doubt- 
less,'" ^^  you  knoio  I  suppose,"  "'  in  sooth." 

^Or,  ii)herein  he  hath  suffered  by  being  him- 
self tempted. 

*  Or,  appointed  him.     Compare  1  Sam.  12: 


6.     It  reff'ps,  doubtless,   either  to  his  human 
birth  or  his  mediatorial  exaltation. 

^Has  some  subordinate  and  earthly  founder, 
while  the  universal  and  supreme  founder  is 
God,  to  whom  all  are  responsible,  alike  Moses 
and  Jesus. 


N 


194 


TRANSLATION. 


[Ch.  IV. 


And  I  said,  They  always  go  astray  in  their  heart ; 
But  they  did  not  know  my  ways  : 

11  So  that  I  swore  in  my  wrath, 
Tliey  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest. 

12  Look  to  it,  brethren,  lest  in  any  of  you  there  shall  be  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief 

13  in  falling  away  from  the  Living  God.     But  exhort  one  another,  day  by  day,  so 
long  as  it  is  still  called  '  to-day,'  ^  that  of  you  there  be  no  one  hardened  by 

14  the  deeeitfulness  of  sin.     For  we  have  become  participants  of  Christ,  provided 

15  that  we  hold  the  beginning  of  our  confidence  stedfast  unto  the  end.     In  its 
being  said, 

To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice, 

Harden  not  your  hearts  as  in  the  provocation. — 

16  For  who,'^  when  they  heard,  provoked  him  ?     Nay,  did  not  all  they  that  came 

17  out  of  Egypt  through  Moses?     And  with  whom  was  he  angry  during  forty 
years?     Was  it  not  with  them  that  sinned?     And  their  carcasses  fell  in  the 

18  wilderness !     And  to  whom  did  he  sware  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his 

19  rest,  but  to  them  that  disobeyed  him?     And  we  see  that  they  were  not  able  to 
enter  in  because  of  unbelief! — 

4      Let  us  fear,  therefore,  lest   haply,  though   there   remaineth   a  promise   of 

2  entering  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  may  seem  to  have  come  short  of  it.  For  we 
have,  indeed,  received  the  glad  message  just  as  did  also  they ;  but  the  word  of 
their  hearing  did  not  profit  them,  not  having  united  itself  by  faith  with  them  ' 

3  that  heard  it.  For  we  enter  into  his  rest  as  those  who  have  believed  ;  accord- 
ing as  he  hath  said,* 

So  that  I  sware  in  my  wrath. 
They  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest ; 
And  this,  indeed,   his  ^  works  having  been  accomplished  [and   thus  his  rest 

4  established]  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.     For  he  hath  said  m  a  certain 

place  concerning  the  seventh  day  thus,  And  God  rested  in  the  seventh  day 

5  from  all  his  works.     And  in  this  place  again  [he  hath  said],  They  shall  not 

6  enter  into  my  rest.  Since  therefore  it  remaineth  *  that  some  may  enter  into 
it,  and  they  who  formerly  had  the  glad  message  did  not  enter  in  because  of 


•  Or,  so  long  as  the  '^  to-day"  is  still  called 
[in  your  ears]. 

Tor  who,  etc.  Abrupt  break  in  the  pre- 
ceding thought  and  construction,  in  order  to 
sharpen  the  appeal  he  is  about  to  make  by 
reminding  them  who  they  were  that  thus 
sinned  and  perished. 

*  Or,  not  having  united  itself  with  faith  in 
them,  etc.  Or,  <rvyKeKfpa<Tiievovi,  not  being 
united  by  faith  with  them  that  heard,  as,  per- 


haps, with  Caleb  and  Joshua.  But  the  id(  a  is 
exceedingly  harsh. 

^  The  quotation  seems  made  to  prove  by  the 
fact  that  some  are  now  excluded  from  it,  that 
the  rest  did  actually  exist  as  a  possibility  for 
some. 

*  'His':  the  article  being  here,  I  think,  as 
often  in  Greek,  equivalent  to  the  pronoun. 

* '  Kemaineth  ':  as  a  logical  conclusion  from 
the  language. 


Ch.  v.] 


TRANSLATION. 


195 


7  disobedience,  he  again  fixeth  a  certain  day ;  namely,  '  To-day ;'  saying  in  David 
so  long  a  time  afterward  (as  hath  been  said  before), 

To-day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice, 
Harden  not  your  hearts. 

8  For  if  Joshua  had  brought  them  to  their  rest,  he  would  not  after  this  be 

9  speaking  of  another  day.   So  then  there  remaineth  a  sabbatic  rest  for  the  people 

10  of  God.  For  he  who  hath  '  entered  into  His  rest  hath  also  himself  rested  from 
his  works  even  as  God  did  from  his  own. 

11  Let  us  be  earnest,  therefore,  to  enter  into  that  rest,  in  order  that  none  may  fall 

12  after  the  same  example  of  disobedience.  For  the  word  of  God  is  living  and 
effective,  and  sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword,  and  penetrating  even  to  the 
severing  of  soul  and  spirit — both  joints  and  marrow — and  sits  in  judgment  on 

13  the  reflections  and  thoughts  of  the  heart.  And  there  is  no  created  thing  that 
is  not  manifest  in  his  presence ;  but  all  things  are  naked  and  laid  bare  to  His 
eyes  with  whom  is  our  account. 

14  Having,  therefore,  a  Great  High  Priest  who  hath  passed  through  the  heavens, 

15  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  confession.  For  we  have  not  an  high 
priest  who  cannot  sympathize  with  our  infirmities,  but  who  hath  been  tried  in  all 

16  respects  like  as  we  are,  apart  from  sin.  Let  us  approach,  therefore,  with  boldness 
to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  for  seasonable 
succor. 

5       For  every  high  priest,  being  taken  from  among  men,  is  constituted  in  behalf 
of  men  in  things  relating  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for 

2  sins ;  being  able  to  deal  tenderly  with  the  ignorant  and  erring,  since  he  is  him- 

3  self  also  encompassed  with  infirmity,  and  because  of  it  is  bound,  as  for  the 

4  people,  so  also  for  himself,  to  bring  offerings  for  sins.  And  not  unto  himself 
doth  any  one  take  the  honor,  but  being  called  of  God,  even  as  was  Aaron. 

5  So  also  Christ  did  not  glorify  himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest ;  but  he  [glori- 
fied him]  who  said  unto  him, 

Thou  art  my  Son, 

To  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ; 

6  even  as  he  also  saith  in  another  place, 

Thou  art  a  priest  forever. 
After  the  order  of  Melchisedec. 

7  Who,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,'' offering  up"  entreaties  and  supplications,  with 


*  Karinavatv.  If  We  refer  this  to  Christ  we 
should  give  to  the  aorist  its  stricter  rendering, 
*'  He  who  rested,"  "  rested  also  himself:  "  but 
if,  as  is  more  natural,  to  the  believer,  we  ren- 
der more  idomatically  "he  who  hath  en- 
tered," "hath  himself  rested." 


'  Affirmation,  by  a  striking  example  (the 
agony  of  Gethsemane),  of  the  first  essential 
priestly  quality,  his  humanity  (Aa/xiJavo/uitro?  .'f 

'  'Offering up':  on  a  single  occasion  (wpoo-tv^y- 
«a«,  aorist  participle) ;  namely,  in  the  Garden. 


196' 


TRANSLATION. 


[Ch.  VI. 


strong  outcry  and  tears,  to  him  who  was  able  to  save  him  from  death,  and  being 
'8  hearkened  to  from  his  filial  piety,  although  he  was  a  Son,  learned  from  that 
9  which  he  suffei-ed  obedience ;  and  being  perfected,  became  to  all  who  prove 

10  obedient  to  him  the  author  of  an  eternal  salvation,  being  saluted  by  God  as 
high  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec. 

11  Concerning  which  matter^  our  discoux'se  is  long  and  hard  of  explanation, 

12  since  ye  have  become  dull  in  your  hearing.  For  when,  on  account  of  the  time, 
ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye  again  have  need  that  one  teach  you  ^  the  rudi- 
mentary principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  have  come  to  have  need  of  milk, 

13  and  not  of  solid  food.     For  every  one  who  partaketh  milk  is  without  experience 

14  in  the  doctrine  of  righteousness :  ^  for  he  is  an  infant.  But  solid  food  is  for 
the  mature,  who,  on  account  of  habit,  have  their  perceptions  disciplined  for  the 
discriminating  of  good  and  evil. 


g      Wherefore  passing  from  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us 
hasten  on  to  maturity,  not  laying  again  a  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead 

2  works   and  faith  toward  God,  of  a  teaching  of  baptisms  and  laying  on    of 

3  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  an  eternal  judgment.     And  this  will 

4  we  do,  provided  that  God  permit.     For  as  to  those  who  have  been  once  for  all 
enlightened,  and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift  and  been  made  partakers  of 

5  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  tasted  an  excellent  word  *  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the 

6  Coming  World,  and  have  fallen  away,  it  is  impossible  to  renew  them  again  to 
repentance,  since  they  re-crucify  for  themselves  the  Son  of  God,  and  put  him  to 

7  an  open  shame.     For  land  that  hath  drunk  the  rain  that  cometh  frequently 
upon  it.  and  bringeth  forth  herbage  suitable  for  those  for  whose  sake  it  is  being 

8  cultivated,  partaketh  in  a  blessing  from  God  ;  but  when  it  beareth  thorns  and 
briars,  it  is  rejected '  and  nigh  unto  a  curse ;  of  which  the  end  is  for  burning. 

9  But  we  are  persuaded  of  the  better  alternative  concerning  you,  beloved,  and 

10  things  akin  to  salvation,  although  we  are  thus  speaking.      For  God  is  not 
unrighteous  to  prove  forgetful  of  your  work,  and  the  love  which  ye  exhibited 

11  toward  his  name  in  that  ye  ministered  to  the  saints,  and  still  minister.     But  we 
desire  that  each  of  you  display  the  same  zeal  for  the  full  perfection  of  his  hope 

12  unto  the  end,  that  ye  may  not   prove  sluggish,  but  imitators  of  them   who 

13  through  faith  and  patient  endurance  inherit  the  promises.    For  God,  in  making 
promise  to  Abraham,  since  he  could  swear  by  none  greater,  sware  by  himself, 

14  saying,  'Assuredly,  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  multiplying  I  will  multiply 

15  thee':    and   thus  by  patient   endurance  he  obtained  the  promise.     For  men 


1  Either  Christ's  priesthood,  or  specially  his 
Melchisedec  priesthood  I  think  the  former. 
Certainly  not  Melchisedec  himself. 

'Or,  that  we  teach  you  what  are   (riva  for 

Tii'a). 


8  Or,  in  a  discourse  of  righteousness. 

*"Pr)ti.a,,  utterance,  ordinance;  notAoyo*,  word 
as  properly  vehicle  of  thought,  speech. 

^TiKTovaa,  oioKijios,  disapproved,  discarded; 
the  figure  is  that  of  life  and  responsibility-. 


Ch.  VII.]  TRANSLATION.  197 

16  indeed  swear  by  the  greater,  and  to  them  in  every  dispute  a  confirmatory  limit 

17  is  the  oath.  In  respect  of  which  God,  wishing  to  display  more  abundantly  to 
the  heirs  of  the  promise  the  unchangeableness  of  his  counsel,  interposed  with 

18  an  oath ;  that  by  two  unchangeable  things  in  which  it  is  impossible  that  God 
should  prove  false,  we  may  have  strong  encouragement,  who  have  fled  for  refuge 

19  to  lay  hold  upon  the  hope  that  lies  before  us,  which,  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul, 
we  have  both  sure  and  stedfast,  and  entering  to  the  region  within  the  veil, 

20  where,  as  Forerunner  on  our  behalf,  Jesus  entered,  becoming,  after  the 

ORDER  OF  MELCHISEDEC,  A  HIGH  PRIEST  FOREVER.' 

7  For  this  Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem,  priest  of  the  Most  High  God,  who  met 
Abraham  as  he  was  returning  from  the  slaughter  of  the  kings,  and  blessed 

2  him ;  to  whom  also  Abraham  opportioned  a  tithe  of  all ;  being  first  by  interpre- 
tation King  of  Righteousness,  and  then  also  King  of  Salem,  which  is,  King  of 

3  Peace ;  -vithout  father,  without  mother,  without  record  of  descent,  having  neither 
beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of  life,  remaineth  a  priest  in  perpetuity. 

4  And  observe  how  great  is  this  man  to  whom  also  Abraham  gave  a  tithe  of 

5  his  choicest  spoils — the  patriarch.  And  while  they  who  of  the  sons  of  Levi 
receive  the  priesthood,  have  a  command,  according  to  the  law,  to  tithe  the 
people — that  is,  their  brethren,  and  that  though  they  have  issued  from  the  loins 

6  of  Abraham — he  who  does  not  derive  his  descent  from  them  has  tithed  Abraham, 

7  and  hath  blessed  the  man  who  had  the  promises.     And  beyond  all  contradiction 

8  the  less  is  blessed  by  the  greater.     And  here,  indeed,  dying  men  receive  tithes ; 

9  but  there,  he  of  whom  it  is  testified  that  he  liveth.     And,  as  one  might  say, 

10  through  Abraham  also  Levi,  who  receiveth  tithes,  has  been  tithed ;  for  he  was 
still  in  the  loins  of  his  father  when  Melchisedec  met  him. 

11  If  indeed,  therefore,  acco>ii;:>/y'.<«^?ne^i^  was^  through  the  Levitical  priesthood 
(for  on  its  basis  the  people  have  had  their  legislation)  what  need  was''  there  that 
after  the  order  of  Melchisedec  a  different  priest  should  arise,  and  not  be  called 

12  after  the  order  of  Aaron?    For  the  priesthood  being  transferred,  there  becometh 

13  also  of  necessity  a  transference  of  the  law ;  [but  it  has  been  transferred] ;  for 
he  of  whom  these  things  are  said,  is  member  of  another  tribe,  from  which  none 

14  hath  given  attendance  at  the  altar.  For  it  is  conspicuously  evident  that  our 
Lord  hath  arisen  out  of  Judah,  in  respect  to  which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing 

15  concerning  priests.     And  [the  transfer]   is  still  more  abundantly  evident  if 

16  [equivalent  to,  in  that],  after  the  likeness  of  Melchisedec,  there  ariseth  a  diflfer- 
ent  priest,  who  is  made  not  after  the  law  of  a  fleshly  commandment,  but  after 

17  the  power  of  an  indissoluble  life.     (For  it  is  testified. 


»  As  the  author  enters  more  fully  on  the  subject  of  the  priesthood,  he  repeats  formally  and 
solemnly  its  three  grand  features:   After  the  order  of  Melchisedec — high  priest — forever. 
»  Or,  were — were  there. 


198  TRANSLATION".  [Ch.  VIII. 

Thou  art  a  Fr'iest  forever, 

After  the  order  of  Melchisedec) — 

18  For  there  follows  a  disannulling  of  the  preceding  commandment  because  of 

19  its  impotence  and  unprofitableness — (for  the  law  brought  nothing  to  perfection) 
— and  the  introduction  in  its  stead  of  a  better  hope  by  which  we  draw  near 
to  God. 

20  And  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  without  the  swearing  of  an  oath — for  they  indeed 

21  have  been  made  priests  without  an  oath ;  but  he  with  an  oath  through  him 
that  saith  in  respect  of  him, 

The  Lord  sware  and  will  not  repent, 

22  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  ; — 

23  by  so  much  also  hath  Jesus  become  the  surety  of  a  better  covenant.  And  they 
indeed,  "have  in  numbers  been  made  priests  because  of  their  being  hindered  by 

24  death  from  abiding  [in  the  priesthood]  ;  but  he,  because  of  his  continuing  for- 

25  ever,  hath  his  priesthood  untransmissible :  whence  also  he  is  able  to  save  unto 
completeness '  those  who  come  to  God  through  him,  since  he  always  liveth  to 
make  intercession  on  their  behalf. 

26  For  such  a  High  Priest  was  [also]  befitting  us — holy,  innocent,  undefiled, 

27  being  separated  fi-ora  sinners,  and  become  higher  than  the  heavens!  who  hath 
not  necessity  day  by  day,  as  those  high  priests,  previously,  on  behalf  of  their 
own  sins,  to  offer  sacrifices,  then  for  those  of  the  people ;  for  this  he  did  once 

28  for  all  in  offering  up  himself  For  the  law  constitutes  men  high  priests,  having 
infirmity :  but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  succeedeth  to  the  law,  the  Son,  who 
is  perfected  for  evermore. 

8  And  as  a  chief  point  in  the  things  which  we  are  saying.*  we  have  such  an 
High  Priest,  who  took  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  Majesty  in  the 

2  heavens,  as  minister  of  the  sanctuary  and  of  the  true  tabernacle,  which  the 

3  Lord  pitched,  not  man.  For  every  high  priest  is  appointed  for  ofiJering  both 
gifts  and  sacrifices  :  whence  it  is  necessary  that  also  this  one  have  somethirg 

4  which  he  may  offer.     For  if,  indeed,'  he  were  on  the  earth  he  would  not  even  be 

5  a  priest,  since  there  exist  those  who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law,  who* 
minister  to  a  copy  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly,  according  as  Moses  hath  been 
divinely  admonished  when  about  to  construct  the  tabernacle ;  for  look,  saith 
He,  that  thou  make  all  things  after  the  model  which  was  shown  to  thee  in 

6  the  mount.  But  as  it  is,  he  hath  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry  by  how 
much  also  he  is  Mediator  of  a  better  covenant,  that  hath  been  enacted  upon 

7  better  promises.     For  if  that  first  covenant  had  been  faultless  there  would  not 


'EU  TO  TTotTeXes,  absolutely,  completely,  to  per-    if  indeed  now,  which  seems  less  fitting  to  the 
ferAion.  connection. 

*  Literally,  which  are  being  said.  ^Oirtvfs,  such  persons  as. 

*  Ei  iMv  yop :  other  authorities  read,  «i  y^iv  oCk,  I 


Ch.  IX.] 


TRANSLATION. 


1S9 


10 


11 


12 


8  have  been  sought  a   place  for  a  second.     [But  is  not  faultless.]     For  finding 
fault  [with  it],  he  saith  to  them  : ' 

Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 

That  I  will   accomplish  over  the   house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of 
Judah  a  new  covenant, 

9  Not  according  to  the  covenant  which  I  made  with  their  fathers, 

In  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  forth  out  of  the 

land  of  Egypt : 
Because  they  did  not  abide  in  my  covenant, 
And  I  disregarded  them,  saith  the  Lord. 
Because  this  is  the  covenant  which  I  will  institute'^  with  the  house  of 

Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord ; 
Putting  my  laws  into  their  understanding, 
Also  upon  their  hearts  will  I  inscribe  them. 
And  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people : 
And  they  shall  not  teach  each  one  his   fellow-citizen,  and   each  his 

brother,  saying. 
Know  the  Lord :  because  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto 

the  greatest : 
Because  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  iniquities,  and  of  their  sins  I  will 

make  mention  no  more. 
In  his  saying  "  a  new  [covenant]  "  he  hath  rendered  antiquated  the  first;  and 
that  which  is  becoming  antiquated  and  old  is  near  to  extinction. 


9       NoAV  the   first  [covenant]   had  ordinances  of  worship,  and   its  sanctuary 

2  belonging  to  this  world.  For  a  tabernacle  was  erected,  the  foremost  one,  in 
which  was  both  the  lampstand  and  the  table,  and  the  setting  forth  of  the  loaves 

3  [shew  bread]  ;  which  is  called  sanctuary  [the  Holy  place].    And  after  the  second 

4  veil,  the  tabernacle  which  is  called  Holy  of  holies  ;  having  a  golden  censer,  and 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  all  around  with  gold,  wherein  was  a  golden  pot 
holding  the  manna,  and  the  rod  of  Aai'on  that  budded,  and  the  tables  of  the 

5  covenant ;  and  above  it  cherubim  of  glory  overshadowing  the  mercy  seat ;  of 
which  things  we  cannot  now  speak  severally. 

6  And  these  things  having  been  thus  arranged,  into  the  foremost  tabernacle 

7  indeed,  the  priests  enter'  continually,  accomplishing  their  sacred  services;  but 
into  the  second  one,  once  in  the  year  the  high  priest  alone,  not  without  blood, 

8  which  he  offers  for  himself  and  the  errors  of  the  people :  the  Holy  Spirit  show- 


iSome  texts  read  a«Tou«,  which  requires 
"finding  fault  with  them";  but  the  whole 
connection  implies  fault  in  the  covenant,  and 
the  reading  avxoU,  attested  by  B,  seems  de- 
cidedly preferable. 


^  Aiafl^o-o/otac,  I  will  Covenant,  institute,  accom- 
plish. 

^  Ei<ria<Ti»',  '  enter  continually ';  historical  pres- 
ent; the  author  transports  himself  hack  into 
the  time  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  service. 


200 


TRANSLATION. 


[Ch.  IX. 


ing  this,  that  the  way  into  the  holiest  of  all  hath  not  yet  been  manifested, 

9  while  the  foremost  tabernacle  still  hath  position ;  which  is  a  parable  for  the 

[then]  present  time,  in  accordance  with  which  [parable]  are  offered  both  gifts 

and  sacrifices  that  cannot  render  perfect  in  the  conscience  him  who  offereth 

10  service,  [consisting]  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  various  immersions^fleshly 
ordinances  imposed  until  the  season  of  reformation. 

11  But  Christ  making  his  appearance,  a  High  Priest  of  the  good  things  that  are 
to  come,  by^  the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands — 

12  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  creation ;  and  not  through  the  blood  of  goats  and 
heifers,  but  through  his  own  blood,  entered  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place, 

13  procuring^  [for  us]  an  eternal  redemption.  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and  of 
bulls,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  them  that  are  defiled,  sanctifieth 

14  unto  cleanness  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who, 
through  an  eternal  spirit,  offered  himself  blameless  unto  God,  cleanse  our  con- 
science from  dead  works  unto  the  serving  of  the  living  God. 

15  And  for  this  cause  he  is  Mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  in  order  that  by  a 
death  taking  place  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressions  committed  under 
the  first  covenant,  they  who  have  been  called  may  receive  the  promise  of  the 

16  eternal  inheritance.     For  where  there  is  a  testament,*  there  must  be  necessarily 

17  adduced  the  death  of  the  testator.  For  a  testament  becometh  valid  in  the  case 
of  the  dead,  since  [look]  whether  it,  perchance,  hath    any  force  while  the 

18  testator  liveth.     Whence  neither  hath  the  first  covenant  been  inaugurated  with- 

19  out  blood.  For  when  every  commandment  had,  according  to  the  law,  been 
spoken  by  Moses  to  all  the  people,  taking  the  blood  of  the  heifers  and  the 
goats  with  the  water  and  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  he  sprinkled  both  the  book 

20  itself  and  all  the  people,  saying.  This  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  God 

21  commanded  unto  you.     And   the  tabernacle  too,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the 

22  service,  he  in  like  manner  sprinkled  with  blood.  And,  as  one  may  say,  all 
things  are,  according  to  the  law,  sprinkled  with  blood,  and  apart  from  the 

23  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  while 
the  copies  of  the  things  in  the  heavens  are  cleansed  with  these,  the  heavenly 

24  things  themselves  be  cleansed  with  better  sacrifices  than  these.  For  into  no 
material  sanctuary  did  Christ  enter,  the  antitype  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven 

25  itself,  now  to  be  manifested  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us ;  and  not  that  he  may 
oftentimes  make  an  offering  of  himself,  even  as  the  high  priest  entereth  into  the 


^ '  By ',  that  is,  through,  by  means  of. 

^'Evpintvo';,  not,  having  procHred,  hut  procur- 
ing, wliich  lie  formally  and  fully  accomplished 
by  the  actual  entrance. 

*Ata9i)itT),  a  testnmentnry  disposition,  a  will,  a 
covenant.  The  word  here  slips  for  a  moment 
half  insensibly  from  the  meamng  oi  covenant 


to  that  of  testament,  turning  on  the  pivot  of  a 
common  word  (iiaC^itij),  through  a  common 
element  of  meaning  (dispensation,  arrange- 
ment), and  related  by  a  common  demand  for 
a  death,  as  seal  of  the  covenant  and  condition 
of  the  testament. 


Ch.  X.] 


TRANSLATION. 


201 


26  holy  place  yeai'  by  year  with  alien  blood  (since  thus  he  must  have  necessarily 
suffered  many  times  since  the  foundation  of  the  world),  but  as  it  is/  once  for 
all,  in  the  consummation  of  the  ages  he  hath  been  manifested  through  his  sacri- 

27  fice  for  the  doing  away  of  sin.     And  inasmuch  as  for  men  it  is  reserved  once 

28  to  die,  and  after  this  a  judgment,  so  also  Christ,  being  once  for  all  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,  unto  those  who  look 
for  him,  appear  for  salvation. 


10       For  the  law,  having  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come,  not  the  very  image 
of  the  things,  can  never  with  the  same  sacrifices  year  by  year,  which  they  offer 

2  in  perpetuity,  make  perfect  those  that  engage  in  them.     Since  then  would  they 
not  have  ceased  to  be  offered,  because  that  the  worshipers,  having  once  for  all 

3  been  cleansed,  would  have  no  longer  any  consciousness  of  sins  ?     But  there  is 

4  in  them  year  by  year  a  renewed  remembrance  of  sins.    For  it  is  impossible  that 

5  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sins.     Wherefore  as  he  entereth 
into  the  world,  he  saith, 

6  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not ; 
But  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  me ; 

In  holocausts  and  sin  offerings  thou  didst  not  have  pleasure. 

7  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  am  come, 

(In  the  roll  of  the  book  it  stands  written  concerning  me)," 
To  do  thy  will,  0  God. 

8  Above  while  saying,  Sacrifices  and  offerings  and  holocausts  and  sin  offerings 
thou  wouldest  not,  nor  didst  have  pleasure  in  (such  as  are  offered  according  to 

9  the  law),  then  hath  he  said,  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  thy  will.     He  taketh  away 

10  the   first  that   he  may  establish  the  second.      By  which  will  we  have  been 
sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all. 

11  And  every  priest,  indeed,  standeth  ministering  day  by  day,  and  offering  many 

12  times  the  same  sacrifices,  such  as  never  can  take  away  sins.     But  this  one,  after 
offering  one  sacrifice  for  sins  forever,  took  his  seat  ^  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 

13  henceforth  awaiting  till  his  enemies  be  placed  as  a  footstool  of  his  feet.     For 

14  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified. 

15  And  the  Holy  Spirit  also  testifieth  for  us.     For  after  having  said  before, 

16  This  is  the  covenant  which  I  will  establish  with  them 
In  those  days,  saith  the  Lord  ; 

Giving  my  laws  upon  their  heart, 


1  Nuvi  it,  but  as  it  is;  doubtful,  perhaps, 
whother  this  is  the  antithesis  of  Iva  woAAaKu 
jrpo(T(^epjj,  ver.  25  («?r«l  eiti.-it6iTiJ.ov  being  then 
thrown  into  parenthesis),  or  of  iroAAaicis  irafleii', 
ver.  2(i,  which  in  that  case  is  released  from 
the   parenthesis.     In   any  case  the  e'jr«l  «5«t  is 


merely  logical,  inferring  the  singleness  and 
finality  of  his  entrance  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
thej^7's^  and  only  one. 

*0r,  it  is  prescribed  to  me. 

•Or,  took  his  seat  forever. 


202  TRANSLATION.  [Ch.  XL 

17  Even  upon  their  understanding  will  I  inscribe  them, 

And  of  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  I  will  no  longer  have  remembrance. 

18  But  where  there  is  remission  of  these  there  is  no  longer  an  offering  for  sin. 

19  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  for  our  entrance  into  the  sanctuary  in 

20  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  way  new  and  living,  which   he  consecrated  through 

21  the  vail,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh ;  and  [having]  a  great  priest  over  the  house 

22  of  God ;  let  us  approach  unto  him  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith, 

23  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience.  And  having  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water,  let  us  hold  fast  the  confession  of  our  hope  unwaver- 

24  ing — for  he  is  faithful   who  promised — and  let  us  regard  closely  one  another 

25  for  incitement  unto  love  and  good  works ;  not  abandoning  the  assembling  of 
ourselves  together,  as  is  the  custom  of  some  ;  but  exhorting  one  another,  and  by 
so  much  the  more  as  ye  behold  the  day  drawing  near. 

26  For  if  we  voluntarily  sin,  after  receiving  the  recognition  of  the  truth,  there 

27  I'emaineth  no  more  a  sacrifice  for  sins ;  but  a  certain  fearful  expectancy  of 

28  judgment,  and  a  fiery  indignation'  that  is  to  devour  the  adversaries.  One  who 
has  violated  the  law  of  Moses,  dies  without  compassion  under  two  or  three  wit- 

29  nesses :  of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  think  ye,  will  he  be  deemed  worthy  who 
has  trampled  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  counted  unclean  the  blood  of  the 
covenant  with  which  he  was  consecrated,  and  done  outrage  to  the  Spirit  of 

30  grace.      For  we  know  him  who  said.  Retribution  is  for  me :  I  will  recompense. 

31  And  again,  '  The  Lord  will  judge  his  people.'  A  fearful  thing  is  it  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  living  God ! 

32  But  call  to  mind  the  former  days  in  which  after  being  enlightened,  ye  endured 

33  a  great  conflict  of  sufferings;  on  the  one  hand  being  made  a  gazing  stock  by 
reproaches  and  afflictions ;  and  on  the  other  by  being  made  participants  with 

34  them  that  were  thus  treated.  For  ye  sympathized  with  the  bondmen,  and 
received  with  joy  the  plundering  of  your  possessions,  knowing  that  ye  had  for 

35  yourselves  ^  a  better  and  an  abiding  possession.     Fling  not  away  then  your 

36  boldness  which  hath  a  great  recompense.  For  ye  have  need  of  endurance,  in 
order  that  by  doing '  the  will  of  God  ye  may  gain  the  promise. 

37  For  yet  a  little— how  little ! 

He  that  coraeth  will  come,  and  will  not  linger. 

38  But  my  righteous  one  will  live  from  faith : 

And  if  he  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  no  pleasure  in  him. 

39  But  we  belong  not  to  them  that  shrink  back  unto  perdition,  but  to  them  that 
are  of  faith  unto  the  gaining  of  the  soul. 

XI       But  Faith  is  the  assurance  of  what  is  hoped  for;  a  conviction  of  things  which 

1  nupbs  ^^Ao?,  jealousy  or  wrath  of  fire.     Fire  being  personified. 
'  Or,  knowing  that  ye  had  yourselves  as  a  better,  etc.     (So  K  A.) 
'  Or,  after  doing. 


Ch.  XL]  TRANSLATION.  203 

2  are  not  seen.     For  in  this  the  elders  received  their  attestation.     By  faith  we 

3  recognize  that  the  worhls  have  been  framed  by  the  utterance  of  God,  so  that  not 

4  out  of  things  apparent  hath  sprung  that  which  is  seen.  By  faith  Abel  oHered 
unto  God  a  nobler  sacrifice  than  Cain,  through  which  he  was  testified  to  be 
righteous,  God  bearing  testimony  over  his  gifts,  and  through  it,  after  dying, 

5  he  still  speaketh.  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see  death ; 
and  he  was  not  found,  because  God  had  translated  him.  For  before  the 
translation  he  hath  had  the  testimony  borne  to  him  that  he  hath  pleased  God. 

6  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him ;  for  he  who  cometh  to  God 
must  have  faith  that  he  is,  and  becometh  a  rewarder  to  them  that  seek  for  him. 

7  By  faith  Noah,  being  divinely  warned  concerning  things  that  were  not  as  yet 
beheld,  filled  with  pious  fear,  consti'ucted  an  ark  for  the  saving  of  his  house, 
through  which  he  condemned  the  world,  and  became  heir  of  the  righteousness 

8  which  is  according  to  faith.  By  faith  Abraham,  being  called  that  he  should  go 
forth  into  the  place  which  he  was  destined  to  receive  for  an  inheritance,  obeyed, 

9  and  went  forth,  not  knowing  whither  he  was  going.  By  faith  he  sojourned  in 
the  land  of  promise,  as  an  alien  land,  dwelling  in  tents  with  Isaac  and  Jacob, 

10  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise.     For  he  was  looking  for  the  city  that  hath 

11  the  foundations,  whose  architect  and  builder  is  God.  By  faith  also  Sarah  her- 
self received  power  for  the  conception  of  seed,'  even  when  past  age,  since  she 

12  counted  faithful  him  who  had  promised.  For  which  reason  also  there  were 
begotten  from  one,  and  him,  too,  as  good  as  dead,  even  as  the  stars  of  heaven 
in  multitude,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  along  the  margin  of  the  sea,  the  innu- 
merable. 

13  In  accordance  with  faith  did  all  these  die,  not  receiving  the  promises,  but 
seeing  them  from  afar,  and  greeting  them,  and  acknowledging  that  they  were 

14  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.     For  they  that  use  such  language  show 

15  clearly  that  they  are  seeking  a  country  of  their  own.'^  And  if,  indeed,  they  had 
had  in  mind  that  country  from  which  they  had  gone  forth,  they  would  have  had 

16  opportunity  to  return  to  it.  But  as  it  is,  they  yearn  for  a  better  [fatherland], 
even  a  heavenly.  For  which  reason  God  is  not  ashamed  to  call  himself  their 
God  ;  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city. 

17  By  faith  Abraham,  being  put  to  trial,  hath  ofl^ered  up  Isaac;  and  he  who 

18  had  accepted  the  promises  was  oflfering  up  his  only-begotten  son,  in  respect  to 

19  whom  it  was  said.  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called  ;  reckoning  that  God  is 

20  able  to  raise  even  from  the  dead;  whence  also  he  received  him  in  a  figure:^ 
By  faith  also  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and  Esau  concerning  the  things  which  were 

21  in  the  future.     By  faith  Jacob,  when  dying,  blessed  each  of  the  sons  of  Joseph, 

22  and  bowed  in  worship  upon  the  top  of  his  staff.  By  faith  Joseph,  in  dying, 
made  mention  of  the  departure  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  and  gave  commandment 

'  Or,  for  the  founding  of  an  offspring.     *  naTpi5a,afntherla}id;  Alford,  a  home.     » Or,  similitude. 


204 


TRANSLATION. 


[Ch.  xir. 

23  concerning  his  bones.     By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  born,  was  hidden  during 
three  months  by  his  parents,  because  they  saw  that  the  child  was  fair,  and  they 

24  did  not  stand  in  fear  of  the  command  of  the  king.      By  faith  Moses,  on  being 

25  grown  up,  refused  to  be  called  the  son  of  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  choosing 
rather  to  suffer  affliction  with  the  people  of  God,  than  to  have  a  temporary 

26  enjoyment  from  sin,  accounting  as  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  of  Egypt 
the  reproach  of  Christ ;  for  he  was  looking  away  to  the  rendering  of  the  reward. 

27  By  faith  he  quitted  Egypt,  not  standing  in  fear  of  the  wrath  of  the  king;  for 

28  he  endured  as  seeing  [the  king]  that  is  unseen.  By  faith  he  hath  observed''  the 
passover  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  in  order  that  he  who  destroveth 

29  the  firstborn  may  not  touch  them.  By  faith  they  passed  through  the  Red"  Sea 
as  through  dry  land,  which  the  Egyptians  attempting  to  do,  were  swallowed 

30  up.     By  faith  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  after  being  encircled  for  seven  days. 

31  By  faith  Rahab,  the  harlot,  did  not  perish  with  them  that  had  proved  disobedi- 
ent, having  received  the  spies  with  peace. 

32  And  what  shall  I  say  farther?     For  the  time  will  fail  me  recounting  con- 

33  cerning  Gideon,  and  Barak,  and  Samson,  and  Jephthah  ;  David,  and  Samuel, 
and  the  prophets :  who  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  righteousness! 

34  obtained  promises,  stopped  the  mouths  (;f  lions,  quenched  the  power  of  fire,' 
escaped  the  edge  of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness  were  rendered  mighty,  proved 

35  valiant  in  war,  turned  to  flight  embattled  hosts  of  aliens.     Women  received 

36  their  dead  by  resurrection  :  and  others  were  broken  on  a  wheel,  not  accepting 

37  deliverance,  that  they  might  obtain  a  better  resurrection.  And  others  bore 
trial  of  mockings  and  scourgings ;  and,  yet  further,  of  bonds  and  im])risonment: 
they  were  stoned,  they  were  tempted,*  they  were  sawn  asunder,  they  died  by 
slaughter  of  the  sword;  they  went  about  in  sheepskins,  in  goatskins;    being 

38  destitute,  afflicted,  maltreated— of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy— wandering 

39  in  deserts  and  mountains  and  caverns  and  the  hollows  of  the  earth.    And  these 

40  all  being  witnessed  to  through  their  faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God  pro- 
viding something  better  concerning  us,  that  apart  from  us  they  should  not  be 
made  perfect. 


12       Therefore '  let  also  us,  since  we  have  so  great  a  cloud  of  witnesses  encompass- 
ing us,  laying  aside  every  weight,  and  our  easily  besetting  nn*  run  enduringly 
2  the  race*  that  lieth  before  us,  looking  away  unto  the  Leader  and  Perfectei^of 
our  faith,  even  Jesus,  who,  in  view*'  of  the' joy  that  lay  before  him,  endured  a 


'Or,  instituted  (irtnoCriKev). 

^'Eireipiff0ri(rav ;  but  far  more  probable,  would 
seem  alike  in  the  rhetorical  and  historical 
ooniiection,  iirp-qae-qiTav,  they  were  burned;  a 
chiinge  which  may  have  been  easily  made, 
though  the  reading  is  without  MS.  authority. 


^toiyapovv,  therefore ;  a  long,  weighty,  em- 
phatic particle  (to»',  ye,  ipa^  olv,  by  this,  that  is 
to  sny,  then,  now),  1  Thess.  4  :  8. 
Or,  clinging,  enfo/dinff. 

^'Avwi/,  literally,  contest,  struggle. 

^'AcTt,  in  face  of,  in  exchange  for. 


Ch.  XIL]  translation.  205 

cross,  making  light  of  shame,  and  hath  taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the 

3  throne  of  God.     For  consider  earnestly  him  who  hath  endured  such  contradic- 
tion at  the  hands  of  sinners  against  himself, '  that  ye  be  not  wearied  out  and 

4  utterly  fainting  in  your  souls.     Ye  have  not  yet  ^  resisted  unto  blood  in  your 

5  struggle  against  sin ;  and  ye  have  forgotten  the  exhortation  which  discourseth 
with  you  as  with  sons. 

My  son,  regard  not  lightly  the  chastening  of  the  Lord, 
Nor  faint  when  thou  art  reproved  by  him  : 

6  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth, 
And  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth. 

7  It  is  for  discipline  that  ye  endure ;  God  is  dealing  with  you  as  sons ;  for  what 

8  son  is  he  whom  his  father  chastiseth  not  ?     And  if  ye  are  without  chastisement, 
of  which  all  [sons]  have  become  partakers,  then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons. 

9  Then,^  did  we  have  the  fathers  of  our  flesh  as  chasteners,  and  give  them  heed, 
[and]  shall  we  not  much  rather  be  in  subjection  to  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and 

10  live?  For  they  indeed  chastened  us  with  reference  to  a  few  days,  according  to 
their  own  pleasure ;  but  he  for  our  profit,  that  we  may  be  partakers  of  his 

11  holiness.  And  all  chastening  for  the  present,  indeed,  seemeth  to  be  not  matter 
of  joy,  but  of  pain ;  yet  afterward  it  yieldeth  a  peaceful  fruit  of  righteousness 
to  them  that  have  been  disciplined  thereby. 

12  Wherefore  right  ye  up  the  relaxed  hands  and  the  palsied  knees. 

13  And  for  your  footsteps  make  ye  level  pathways ;  that  what  is  lame  be  not 
turned  out  of  the  way,  but  rather  be  healed. 

14  Pursue  after  peace  with  all,  and  sanctity,  without  which  none  shall  look 

15  upon  the  Lord.  Watching  carefully  lest  there  be  any  falling  short  of  the  grace 
of  God  ;*  lest  any  root  of  bitterness  springing  up  trouble  you,  and  by  means  of 

16  it  the  many  be  defiled  ;  lest  [there  be]  any  fornicator  or  profane  one,  like  Esau, 

17  who  for  one  meal  sold  his  own  birthright.  For  ye  know  that  afterward,  when 
he  would  fail  inherit  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected  (for  he  found  no  place  ^  for 
repentance),  although  he  sought  it  earnestly  with  tears. 

18  For  ye  have  not  drawn  near  to  a  palpable  [and  material]  mountain,®  and  to 

19  enkindled  fire,^  and  to  darkness  and  gloom  and  tempest,  and  to  the  sound  of  a 
trumpet,  and  a  voice  of  uttered  words,  which  they  who  heard  refused,  entreating 


>  Or,  themselves,  eovrou's,  a  x  D  E. 

'  Probably  here  of  internal  and  spiritual 
struggle. 

"Etra,  more  commonly  explained  here  as 
furthermore;  but,  I  think,  erroneously.  I  take 
it  as  the  familiar  Greek  particle  of  surprise 
and  emotion  ;  then,  emphatic  as  often  in  Eng- 
lish. To  T0U9  jieV,  oil  itoKv  (if)  fiaAAoc  would  regu- 
larly correspond. 

*  Or,  lest  any  one  [be]  lacking  the  grace  of 


God — lest  any  root,  etc.  The  ti-n  n?  perhaps 
takes  up  the  broken  construction. 

*  For  effectual  repentance ;  his  regret  was 
too  late  -..nd  unavailing.  'It';  namely,  the 
blessing  of  the  birthright. 

*'opei,  read  by  Tischendorf,  and  apparently 
demanded  by  the  antitheses. 

'  Or,  to  a  palpable  mountain  and  burning 
with  fire. 


£0G  TRANSLATION.  [Ch.  XIII. 

20  that  no  further  discourse  be  addressed  to  them.     For  they  endured  not  the  injunc- 

21  tion,  Even  if  a  beast  touch  the  mountain  it  shall  be  stoned ;  and,  so  fearful  was  the 

22  spectacle,  Moses  said  :  I  am  terrified  and  trembling !  But  ye  have  approached 
unto  Mount  Sion,  and  the  city  of  the  Living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, 

23  and  to  myriads  of  angels,  a  festal  company,'  and  to  a  congregation  of  first- 
born ones  who  are  registered  in  heaven,  and  as  judge  to  the  God  of  all,  and  to 

24  the  spirits  of  righteous  ones  made  perfect,  and  to  Jesus,  Mediator  of  a  New 
Covenant,  and  to  a  blood  of  sprinkling  that  speaketh  more  mightily  than  that 

25  of  Abel.^  See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  who  is  speaking.  For  if  they  escaped  not 
when  they  refused  [to  listen]  to  him  who  uttei-ed  the  divine  warning  on  earth, 
much  rather  [shall  not]  we  who  turn  away  from  him  who  [uttereth  it]  from 

26  the  heavens.  Whose  voice  then  shook  the  earth,  but  now  he  hath  promised, 
saying :  Yet  once  for  all  I  will  shake  not  only  the  earth,  but  also  heaven.    And 

27  this  '  yet  once  for  all '  shows  the  removal  of  the  things  which  are  shaken,  as 
things  that  have  been  made,  that  the  things  which  are  not  shaken  may  remain. 

28  Wherefore,  let  us,  since  we  receive  a  kingdom  that  is  unshaken,  cherish  thank- 
fulness, through  which  we  may  acceptably  serve  God  with  reverent  awe  and 

29  fear.     For  also  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire. 

13       Let   brotherly   love   continue.      Be   not   forgetful  of   the   entertaining   of 

2  strangers:  for  thereby  some  have  unawares  entertained  angels.     Remember 

3  those  in  bonds  as  bound  with  them ;  them  that  are  ill  treated  as  being  your- 

4  selves  also  in  the  body.     Be  marriage  held  in  honor  among  all,  and  its  bed 

5  undefiled  :  for  fornicators  and  adulterers  God  will  judge.     Be  your  disposition 
without  avarice,  satisfied  with  your  present  goods  ;  for  he  himself  hath  said,  I 

6  will  in  no  wise  leave  thee,  nor  in  any  wise  abandon  thee.     So  that  with  confi- 
dence we  may  say. 

The  Lord  is  a  helper  unto  me,  and  I  will  not  be  afraid  ; 
What  shall  a  man  do  unto  me? 

7  Bear  in  memory  those  who  were  your  leaders,  such  as  spoke  to  you  the  word 
of  God ;  and  surveying  the  issue  of  their  course  of  life,  imitate  their  faith. 

8  Jesus  Christ  is  yesterday  and  to-day  the  same,  and  forever.    Be  not  drawn  aside 

9  by  various  and  strange  teachings.     It  is  an  excellent  thing  that  our  hearts  be 
established  with  grace,  not  with  meats  with  which  they  that  were  conversant, 

10  were  not  benefited.     We  have  an  altar  from  which  they  have  no  license  to  eat 

11  who  serve  the  tabernacle.  For  of  whatever  animals  the  blood  is  borne  into 
the  sanctuary  by  the  high  priest,  of  these  the  bodies  are  burned  outside  of  the 

12  encampment.     Wherefore  also  Jesus,  that  he  might  by  his  own  blood  sanctify 

13  the  people,  suffered  without   the  city.      Therefore  let  us  go  forth  unto  him 

14  without  the  camp,  bearing  his  reproach:  for  we  have  not  here  an  abiding  city, 

'  Or,  and  to  myriads,  a  festal  host  of  angels.  *0r,  more  mightily  than  Abel. 


Ch.  XIII.]  TRANSLATION.  207 

15  but  we  seek  that  which  is  to  come.  Through  him,  therefoi-e,  let  us  offer  up 
always  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  lips  making  acknowledg- 

16  ment  to  his  name.     And  of  doing  good  and  of  communicating  be  not  forgetful ; 

17  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased.  Obey  those  that  have  the  leader- 
ship of  you,  and  submit  to  them.  For  they  themselves  watch  sleeplessly  for 
your  souls,  as  having  to  render  an  account;  that  they  may  do  this  with  joy, 
and  not  with  sighing  :  for  this  were  unprofitable  to  you. 

18  Pray  for  us  :  for  we  persuade  ourselves  that  we  have  a  good  conscience,  wish- 

19  ing  in  all  things  to  conduct  ourselves  becomingly.  And  I  the  more  exceedingly 
exhort  you  to  do  this,  that  I  may  the  sooner  be  restored  to  you, 

20  And  may  the  God  of  peace,  who  brought  back  from  the  dead,  in  the  blood 

21  of  an  eternal  covenant,  the  Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  our  Lord  Jesus,  perfect 
you  thoroughly  in  every  good  work  unto  the  doing  of  his  will,  working  in  you  ^ 
that  which  is  well  pleasing  in  his  sight  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory 
forever  and  ever.     Amen, 

22  And  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  bear  with  my  word  of  exhortation  ;  for  I  have 

23  written  to  you  in  all  brevity.  Know  that  our  brother  Timothy  has  been  set  at 
liberty ;  with  whom,  if  he  come  quickly,  I  shall  see  you. 

24  Salute  all  them  that  have  the  guidance  of  you,  and  all  the  saints.  Those  from 
Italy  salute  you. 

25  Grace  be  with  you  all. 

^'Y/ilv;  a  somewhat  better  attested  reading,  rnxlv,  us.     But  the  two  words,  becoming  alike 
in  sound,  were  often  confounded  in  the  MSS.,  and  here  vi^-iv  seems  far  more  probable. 


4 


^ 


<^\W 


Date  Due 


;:a^5 


MAR  4     "^f 


^ 


-'^Zl^ltt-r  ^ 


M  t) 


<-  it 


